PDA

View Full Version : Freeholder's consent and fee to sublet leasehold flat



Pages : [1] 2 3

kd1
12-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Hello

I own a flat and want to let it out. It is share of freehold but with a lease attached. The lease states that I must request permission from the freehold company to sublet, although permission should not be unreasonably withheld. I own one share, and have two neighbours with one share each (for a total of three shares). One of the neighbours is the secretary of the freehold.

My two neighbours have said in writing (following my written request) that they deny permission based on the fact that potential tenants could be a nightmare. I bought the flat two years ago and have lived in it since- they claim the previous owners let it out to tenants who were bad. They say they will never let me sublet based on this.

Is this an 'unreasonable' basis for denying me permission to sublet?

Any advice would be great.

Poppy
12-06-2008, 13:01 PM
I think their reason that the tenant "could be nightmare" is wholly unreasonable.

You need to demonstrate that you will properly reference all incoming tenants and that the assured shorthold tenancy agreement will comply with the lease. You could go as far as saying that you will issue the tenancy for a maximum of six months, to give you a relatively early option of eviction if the tenant turns out to be a nightmare, not just for them but you too.

Ask them to properly object to that. Keep it friendly. :rolleyes:

Be prepared to get legal on their asssss!

Paragon
12-06-2008, 13:18 PM
I vote for reasonable. OK - we are at 1-1. Next voter please.

jeffrey
12-06-2008, 16:47 PM
Read LTA 1988. Onus of proof re what is 'reasonable' rests on L, under s.1(6).

anniebea
19-03-2010, 19:57 PM
I own a flat that I let out . Today I received a demand for 193.87 for retrospective consent to sublet. It seems an extortionate amount. I have looked at my lease, There is nothing to say I can’t sublet, the only thing I can find is under a heading called Assignments where it states.

"Within one month after every assignment assent transfer of underlease for a term exceeding twenty one years or assignment of such underlease or any devolution of title (including a mortgage or legal charge) of the property or any part thereof or any share therein to give notice in writing to the lessor or its agent and to pat to the lessor or its agent a fee of not less that twenty five pound s for registration of such notice"

Is this the legal para that covers this? Can they put in a retrospective charge? Can they charge a different amount for a retrospective charge? Its 129 if its not retrospective. Can I ask them to break down the costs? Don’t want to get in to hassle over the lease ... but I know that freehold managers are real sharks so I would like some advice as I begrudge paying them anything that I don’t have to.

quarterday
19-03-2010, 20:48 PM
Is there any obligation in the lease for a direct covenant from the prospective subtenant?If so it may be reasonable to with-hold consent unless the covenant is forthcoming.

The courts have ruled that a licence for consent to sublet shouldnt cost as much as you have been quoted. You could take a chance and tell them that they are not entitled to the fee. I probably would.

Freehold managers look after ground rent investments for a variety of people; including some highly respectable institutional landlords eg Pooled Investment Funds with long standing investments in ground rents who might be very interested to know that they are ripping off their lessees. I suggest you put it to freehold managers that if they persist in asking for an excessive fee you will stitch them up to their clients whose good name is being compromised by the request for an excessive consent fee as the fee is nominally being paid as the freeholders - inflated- costs.

Let me know how you get on. You will find a reference on here to the case heard at LVT where the bench decided that in any event a fee of less than a hundred pounds would be sufficient for a licence to sublet

Lawcruncher
19-03-2010, 20:52 PM
"Within one month after every assignment assent transfer of underlease for a term exceeding twenty one years or assignment of such underlease or any devolution of title (including a mortgage or legal charge) of the property or any part thereof or any share therein to give notice in writing to the lessor or its agent and to pat to the lessor or its agent a fee of not less that twenty five pound s for registration of such notice"

Assuming the "of" should be an "or" and your subletting was for 21 years or less then there is no requirement to register the subletting and consequently no fee to pay.

Further, if subletting is not prohibited or permitted with consent, no consent is needed and accordingly no fee payable for any consent.

anniebea
19-03-2010, 20:57 PM
Assuming the "of" should be an "or" and your subletting was for 21 years or less then there is no requirement to register the subletting and consequently no fee to pay.

Further, if subletting is not prohibited or permitted with consent, no consent is needed and accordingly no fee payable for any consent.

The OF is and OR.

Should I just write to them and quote this paragraph saying that that subletting is not prohibted and that I do not thinkk I am liable.

I cannot find anything else in the lease that says subletting is prohibted.

Lawcruncher
19-03-2010, 21:13 PM
Write and say: On what grounds do you consider I am liable to pay the fee requested?

anniebea
19-03-2010, 21:50 PM
I have read the information they sent requesting the payment and it says in the form where I am meant to provide the details of the tenancy that it is to comply with the restrictions set out by the landlords insurers.

I think again its something to fob me off again.

They also warn that they will inform the mortgage lender (no mortgae so that threat wont wash) and the inurance on the property may be affected.

Its one of those letter that they hope will scare you in to just paying up.

anniebea
20-03-2010, 08:13 AM
Thier request is for consent of the freeholder to a sublet - there is nothing in the lease to say anything about subletting.

I will write to them as above and post back what happens.

IC22
26-03-2010, 10:41 AM
Read your message with interest as I have just received an identical letter (same amounts) so I'm guessing we have the same freeholder, although I can't seem to find any reference to subletting in my lease. I'm contacting other owners in the building to see how they are responding - would be interested how you get on.

PeteHenry
26-03-2010, 11:49 AM
I had this a while ago and had paid Freehold Managers every time they requested. However, last time the fee was ridiculous (about £200), so I wrote back to them and asked them to provide a breakdown of their costs, and if it wasn't reasonable I would take them to the tribunal - including retrospectoively for all previous payments.
I got an apology, wothdrawal fo the request and have had no further requests from them since.
The back of the letter from them by law must tell you how you can appeal to the land tribunal.

anniebea
26-03-2010, 13:16 PM
There is nothing in my lease that says I have to get thier consent to sublet. I have written to them asking them where in the lease it says I have to have thier consent.

I am awaiting thier reply. I suspect they haven't even looked at my lease and have just targeted those leasholders whose postal address for communications doesnt match the address of the property and sent them a standard letter. The letter asked me to provide details of insurance so they can make sure it is OK!!. They insure the property...... so it looks as if they havent checked that either before sending out the letter.

They will get some people who will just pay up without checking and they will get money that they are not entitled to.

Handson
26-03-2010, 14:45 PM
There is nothing in my lease that says I have to get thier consent to sublet. I have written to them asking them where in the lease it says I have to have thier consent.

I am awaiting thier reply. I suspect they haven't even looked at my lease and have just targeted those leasholders whose postal address for communications doesnt match the address of the property and sent them a standard letter. The letter asked me to provide details of insurance so they can make sure it is OK!!. They insure the property...... so it looks as if they havent checked that either before sending out the letter.

They will get some people who will just pay up without checking and they will get money that they are not entitled to.

The old 'standard letter' approach.

It is silly because many landlords who bought on btl will have put tenants into flats. I don't know how they can enforce this in court. If they don't put people in, they will struggle financially if not living in the property themselves.

anniebea
26-03-2010, 14:57 PM
I suspect that many people who bought BTL have leases that do NOT require any landlord consent to sublet ..... but this company (freehold managers plc) will try anything to earn a fast buck.

They will get a certain % of owners who will pay up without thinking/checking. Owners need to read thier lease and challenge these people. I have personal experience in dealing with them .... They tried to demand money for ground rent which we had already paid. We bought plot 13, which was renumbered to 14 (something about no 13 being unlucky) Frehold Managers tried to charge us for number 13 and 14 and I spent ages trying to contact them by phone, and post before they sorted it out. Professional outfit - DEFINATELY NOT

anniebea
01-04-2010, 17:17 PM
Freehold managers have replied as follows

We require that any tenant who chooses to sublet thier property obtain landlord consent whether or not it is a requirement of the leasehold agreement,

The freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification proves that they have approved a subtenant, The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub letting.

This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the freeholder must be of each sub tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use if the property.

Freehold managers insure the property.

How can they charge us for something that isnt in the lease.

Where do I go to from here? Can the LVT help with this, or should I take some formal legal advice.

They are trying to charge me additional money because I didnt inform them when the tenancy was agreed , but there is nothing in the lease to that affect so how was I to know I had to pay this amount.

The amount is excessive - would like to know what they do for £127

and if they do have a right to charge it I would like to see the insurers document that says they need this consent.

Poolboy
01-04-2010, 18:00 PM
I was asked for over 300 GBP by a different company.

Thanks for posting as I will now check the lease & if I have to pay will question the cost break down.

I ignored the request as it seemed a lot of money for doing very little.

anniebea
01-04-2010, 18:04 PM
£300 is definately an excessive amount for consent to sublet. I think there is soemthing on here about what is an appropriate fee for this, so if you do need to get consent I would check it out. I think it was an Leaseholder Valutaion Tribunal ruling

fps
04-04-2010, 18:34 PM
Hi, I think they are charging an administration charge to cover the admin for dealing with a absent leaseholder. Also the insurance company may impose certain requirements on properties that are let.

Lawcruncher
05-04-2010, 11:25 AM
We require that any tenant who chooses to sublet thier property obtain landlord consent whether or not it is a requirement of the leasehold agreement,

The freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification proves that they have approved a subtenant, The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub letting.

This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the freeholder must be of each sub tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use if the property.


This is a load of tiddlepish.

They cannot unilaterally impose their requirements. Period. Tell them to insure with a less fussy insurer.

anniebea
05-04-2010, 14:53 PM
Hi, I think they are charging an administration charge to cover the admin for dealing with a absent leaseholder. Also the insurance company may impose certain requirements on properties that are let.

£129 admin charge plus they are trying to charge me extra because I didnt inform them, when I didnt even know that I had to . There is nothing in my lease to say I had to and they have never sent me a copy of the insurance document that says that this is a requirement fo the insurance.

My earlier question - If they are within thier rights to charge, is the amount of the charge something that the LVT can adjudicate on. They want to charge this 129 annually, or when the lease changes. If I had two 6mths lease it would be 248 per annum for doing very little in my opinion.

Lawcruncher
06-04-2010, 00:21 AM
If there is no provision in the lease the agent cannot make a charge whatever the insurance policy says.

I think the thing to do is to ask for a copy of the policy. The schedule to the Housing Act 1985 sets out your rights in this respect. See here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=landlord+and+tenant&Year=1985&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2177215&ActiveTextDocId=2177283&filesize=2426

You may care to note paragraph 6 and point it out to the agent.

dominic
06-04-2010, 15:19 PM
Actually it's the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, referenced by s.30A (I think).

Just refuse to pay. They have no legal right to the charge, on the excerpts of the lease you have provided us with.

Offer to deal with the insurer yourself (you have a right to see the policy, and the receipt or invoice evidencing the premium paid anyway).

Having sight of the policy will inform you exactly whether what they have said is correct about the insurer's requirements. And I bet they are telling you porkies.

Lawcruncher
06-04-2010, 15:25 PM
Actually it's the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, referenced by s.30A (I think).

Quite right.

jmh
06-04-2010, 15:45 PM
Good afternoon. I own a flat which I sub-let. The Freeholders (Management co) have found out and are now demanding I either a) get a licence to sub-let, b) get my tenant out by 1st May or they will start proceedings against me to forfeit my lease, which basically means they will take my flat away from me!!
Can they do this?
Also, they have advised their solicitors fees for the sub-letting licence will be at least £600. Does this seem reasonable?

dominic
06-04-2010, 16:05 PM
jmh, read your lease to find out whether you require consent from the FH or anything as formal as a licence.

As to the fee in the event you do - that does not seem reasonable.

Further the threat of forfeiture appears to be a hollow one. I would think it is extremely unlikely they would be successful.

jmh
06-04-2010, 16:25 PM
Thanks Domonic for your reply. I checked my lease, which is another matter - it was written in 1977 and says that the lesser is HGS management who no longer exist - should I have had an updated lease for it to be upheld? It does say I need written consent from the lesser, but I'm wondering if because the only lease that I've ever had is older than me does it apply or should I have had a new one from the new management co?

dominic
06-04-2010, 16:39 PM
No, your 1977 lease still appears to be valid, even though the lessor has changed.

So, it seems you do need lessor consent to sublet.

I would write back intimating that it is a simple document requiring minimum effort, and that a reasonable fee would be something in the region of £25 - 50.

Point out that by virtue of 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and tenant Act 1927, the lessor is entitled only to require payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with such licence or consent.

Accordingly, ask for a breakdown of those expenses (note: no profit may be charged, it is only for expenses incurred). Mention to them that only simple consent is required, and there is no legal requirement for a licence. Accordingly, most solicitors would charge about £25 - £50 to draw up the correct wording in a letter from lessor to you, lessee (perhaps up to £100 for a licence), which would appear to be a reasonable sum in this instance.

If they persist in demanding this unreasonable sum, state that you will treat the consent to be unreasonably withheld, and that you will assume deemed consent on that basis.

Lawcruncher
06-04-2010, 16:56 PM
Good afternoon. I own a flat which I sub-let. The Freeholders (Management co) have found out and are now demanding I either a) get a licence to sub-let, b) get my tenant out by 1st May or they will start proceedings against me to forfeit my lease, which basically means they will take my flat away from me!!
Can they do this?
Also, they have advised their solicitors fees for the sub-letting licence will be at least £600. Does this seem reasonable?

As suggested, the first port of call is the lease to see if consent is needed for the particular type of subletting. If it is, the next question is whether or not any rent has been paid or demanded since the subletting came to the notice of landlord or agent. If it has, any breach has been waived and you are in the clear. If any rent is due soon, prevaricate until rent is demanded

As to the amount of the solicitor's fee:

The Guardian site says:

£570 Average cost of conveyancing for a house seller, according to mortgage lender the Woolwich in its annual Cost of Moving survey

The BBC site says:

For a property costing £100,000, you should expect to pay about £550 in fees.

£600 for a licence seems way over the top.

EDIT: The above posted before reading the two immediately preceding posts.

anniebea
06-04-2010, 18:27 PM
Good afternoon. I own a flat which I sub-let. The Freeholders (Management co) have found out and are now demanding I either a) get a licence to sub-let, b) get my tenant out by 1st May or they will start proceedings against me to forfeit my lease, which basically means they will take my flat away from me!!
Can they do this?
Also, they have advised their solicitors fees for the sub-letting licence will be at least £600. Does this seem reasonable?

My letter from Freehold manager ( which is becoming more laughable as the days go by) says it was 129 for subletting and 193 as I hadnt told them in advance. They state this as fee for consent to sublet on thier website. This is far too much as has been stated in earlier posts and £500 for an admin fee seems extortinate

On my saga, today my Brother in law who owns half my flat and who is director of the managment company that the tenants run, rang freehold managers and managed to speak to someone (which is a first) . They now say we should disregard the letter . He has asked them to put this in writing. If they do not do this within 7 days, we will write to them confirming the call and stating that the matter is closed.

I am determined not to pay thier fees, and stand up to Freehold managers. I just wonder how may leaseholders just pay up without realising the fees are not justifiable..

jmh
06-04-2010, 18:35 PM
Thanks again for replying. I have a solicitor looking at it and I mentioned the £600 fee for the management co's solicitors to her, she said: Do bear in mind that some firms charge their solicitors out at way over £200 an hour - when I was an associate at Eversheds back in the early '90's I was charging at £150.00 - so £600 may be " reasonable".

Is it worth mentioning to my solicitor that it is not a legal document that is required so therefore there's not really any need for all these solicitors! I don't mind paying my solicitor as she's stated her fee should not be more than £100.

Lawcruncher
06-04-2010, 19:16 PM
Thanks again for replying. I have a solicitor looking at it and I mentioned the £600 fee for the management co's solicitors to her, she said: Do bear in mind that some firms charge their solicitors out at way over £200 an hour - when I was an associate at Eversheds back in the early '90's I was charging at £150.00 - so £600 may be " reasonable".

Is it worth mentioning to my solicitor that it is not a legal document that is required so therefore there's not really any need for all these solicitors! I don't mind paying my solicitor as she's stated her fee should not be more than £100.

I am afraid that just will not do. Solicitors have become far too obsessed with time. They think that they should be earning the same (or at least a minimum rate) for every job. The time spent on a matter is just one of eight factors that should be taken into account when billing. Time (and where appropriate value) are often the only factors taken into account. You can get a nice weekend in Paris for two for £600. £600 is just not good value for money for a licence to sublet a flat.

jmh
06-04-2010, 19:20 PM
Well I shall tell my solicitor all of this and see what she says! If she can do all the work her end for £100 I can't see why the management co solicitors would charge £600!
I'll keep you all informed and thank you so much for your help.

dominic
09-04-2010, 15:10 PM
Simply, it is not reasonable to use a solicitor with such charge out rates for something this simple.

If what was being asked was complex, or toherwise needed such high profile representation, that might be reasonable. But this is not one of those occasions.

anniebea
14-04-2010, 17:48 PM
I have today receieved a letter from FREEHOLD MANAGERS re their request for a fee to sublet.

The letter admits that they automatically send out a letter demanding a fee to any properties where the correspondance address is different from the property address.

They tried to say in earlier letters that it was because they had to confirm that the building insurance was valid.

They have now confirmed that I am not liable to pay anything.

All Leasholders who have freeehold managers as thier freehold should be aware of this practice and challenge it if thier lease does not require any consent.

This was a demand for money which in this case and I suspect many more this company had no right to make. :)

jeffrey
14-04-2010, 19:42 PM
Proof (if needed) that they are- er- less than 100% reliably honest?

IC22
15-04-2010, 11:53 AM
Having recently received a seemingly identical letter from Freehold Managers requesting payment for sub-letting, I too replied stating that there is no clause within my lease agreement requiring such permission or charge.

Unfortunately I have just received a different response. They now claim:

"We require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their property obtain Landlords consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement. The Freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification process that they have approved a sub-tenant. The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub-letting. This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the Freeholder must be of each sub-tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use of the property".

Is this reasonable? Can the freeholder demand extra payments for anything in the guise of "insurance" even though not stipulated in the lease agreement? Any advice gratefully received.

anniebea
15-04-2010, 12:40 PM
Yes I got thier second letter and it is their standard response. They admitted in thier last letter to me that it is a standard letter they send out when property and correspondance address dont match

On receipet of second letter the Director of our management company (leaseholders run it themselves) rang freehold managers, we apparently had a copy of the insurance certificate (FHM insure the property) and told them there is nothing in the insurance certficate that says we have to pay them anything.

They say they are obliged to esnure that anyone who is subletting doesnt invalidate insurance...... seems like they are just trying to make a fast buck.

Do FHM insure to building - Do you have a copy of the insurance document? I would suggest if they do insure the property they check thier own paper work at no cost to you

I beleieve they have NO right to demand this money.

Richard Webster
15-04-2010, 13:17 PM
Freehold Managers need telling to change their insurers to one that won't make the requirement because they can't alter the wording of the leases.

kikuyu
15-04-2010, 13:23 PM
Having recently received a seemingly identical letter from Freehold Managers requesting payment for sub-letting, I too replied stating that there is no clause within my lease agreement requiring such permission or charge.

Unfortunately I have just received a different response. They now claim:

"We require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their property obtain Landlords consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement. The Freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification process that they have approved a sub-tenant. The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub-letting. This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the Freeholder must be of each sub-tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use of the property".

Is this reasonable? Can the freeholder demand extra payments for anything in the guise of "insurance" even though not stipulated in the lease agreement? Any advice gratefully received.

Write back to your MA and ask them to disclose if any commission is payable to them from the insurers. If so, ask them to off-set any fee involved in your case and see what the response is.

BigBaldTone
15-04-2010, 13:36 PM
I have today receieved a letter from FREEHOLD MANAGERS re their request for a fee to sublet.

The letter admits that they automatically send out a letter demanding a fee to any properties where the correspondance address is different from the property address.

They tried to say in earlier letters that it was because they had to confirm that the building insurance was valid.

They have now confirmed that I am not liable to pay anything.

All Leasholders who have freeehold managers as thier freehold should be aware of this practice and challenge it if thier lease does not require any consent.

This was a demand for money which in this case and I suspect many more this company had no right to make.

Annie
Only just stumbled upon this website, as I too have received the exact same letter from them regarding an "admin" fee for consent for sub-letting!!!

I'll be double-checking my lease this evening - but suspect it's exactly the same case as yourself.....

Would it be cheeky of me to ask the exact wording on your letters challenging this?:cool:

anniebea
15-04-2010, 13:44 PM
Freehold Managers need telling to change their insurers to one that won't make the requirement because they can't alter the wording of the leases.

In our case the insurance didnt require it anyway - FHM dont check thier own insurance certificates first -( they insure teh property) they just send out these speculative letters. the more people that challenge them, the more admin they have to do and maybe they will stop ..... ( but i doubt it - if they get just 1% that pay up its extra money for little work)

anniebea
15-04-2010, 13:51 PM
Annie
Only just stumbled upon this website, as I too have received the exact same letter from them regarding an "admin" fee for consent for sub-letting!!!

I'll be double-checking my lease this evening - but suspect it's exactly the same case as yourself.....

Would it be cheeky of me to ask the exact wording on your letters challenging this?:cool:

The content of the letter I sent was along the lines of ....

With reference to your letter of 15th March which was received on 19th March in which you request an administration fee for your consent to let the above property, please advise under which clause in the lease you are making this request. There is no clause in the lease which requires us to gain your consent to let the property.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.

There response is to send you a letter saying its standard practice because of insurance. Do they insure your property and do you have a copy of the insurance. might be useful to check out as well

BigBaldTone
15-04-2010, 14:00 PM
The content of the letter I sent was along the lines of ....

With reference to your letter of 15th March which was received on 19th March in which you request an administration fee for your consent to let the above property, please advise under which clause in the lease you are making this request. There is no clause in the lease which requires us to gain your consent to let the property.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.

There response is to send you a letter saying its standard practice because of insurance. Do they insure your property and do you have a copy of the insurance. might be useful to check out as well

Not too sure if they insure the property as well, but doubt it. The MA is different and they MUST be the company who deals with that. So, I'll double check with them as well.

Have to say, this isn't the first time I've had a run-in with them concerning excessive fees. The first time was down to getting replacement patio doors fitted in my flat, as the originals were of extremely poor quality.....
Not knowing any different I coughed up £250 for a consent fee to allow me to change the sub-standard originals....

End of the day, it's just them trying to pull a fast one, and as you've previously mentioned - a lot of people will just pay the fee's without challenging anything.
I'm one of the last people in my particular block to have rented my property out - I did so last year, as I was living there previously and at that time over 95% were sub-let.....

Thanks for the post, and I'll be drafting a letter to them tomorrow once I've checked my lease....

anniebea
15-04-2010, 14:20 PM
Not too sure if they insure the property as well, but doubt it. The MA is different and they MUST be the company who deals with that. So, I'll double check with them as well.

Have to say, this isn't the first time I've had a run-in with them concerning excessive fees. The first time was down to getting replacement patio doors fitted in my flat, as the originals were of extremely poor quality.....
Not knowing any different I coughed up £250 for a consent fee to allow me to change the sub-standard originals....

End of the day, it's just them trying to pull a fast one, and as you've previously mentioned - a lot of people will just pay the fee's without challenging anything.
I'm one of the last people in my particular block to have rented my property out - I did so last year, as I was living there previously and at that time over 95% were sub-let.....

Thanks for the post, and I'll be drafting a letter to them tomorrow once I've checked my lease....

Check the insurance - our managing agents used to sort it and FHM when they bought the freehold decided they wanted to do it. Think though it may be in the lease that they have to insure it.

The more people that stand up to this company the better in my opinion

NewbeeLandlord
16-04-2010, 13:53 PM
Guys

I had a letter too recently from the asking for 193.97(usually 129.25) for consent.

Am about to post a letter similar the one described to them. Have verified my lease. Only clauses with any 'let' mentioned are below.

"During the last seven years of the term hereby ranted not to assign underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof or the said fixtures without the previous consent in writing of the Lessor such consent not to be unreasonably withheld

Not to assign underlet or part with the possession of part only of the demised premises"

Does this mean I have to pay their reasonable 'consent letting fee' ?

jeffrey
16-04-2010, 13:59 PM
You need not pay, provided that:
a. the lease term has more than seven years unexpired; and
b. your underletting is for the whole of the premises which the lease demised.

anniebea
16-04-2010, 14:27 PM
Same old standard letter approach again. I bet they are doing a systamatic trawl through thier database. I have alerted all the other owners in our development who might sublet through the managment company - might be worth doing that aswell so that this company dont get money they are not entitled to.

NewbeeLandlord
17-04-2010, 12:58 PM
Thank you Jeffrey

Gordon999
18-04-2010, 16:18 PM
Same old standard letter approach again. I bet they are doing a systamatic trawl through thier database. I have alerted all the other owners in our development who might sublet through the managment company - might be worth doing that aswell so that this company dont get money they are not entitled to.

Anniebea :

The Which Report (for April 2010) on page 77 carried an article about solicitors making volume demands for payment for alledged copyright infringement which was called " speculative invoicing" and Which have applied presure and been able to get the SRA to raise the conduct of the solicitors to the SDT .

Perhaps you ( and other FH targeted victims ) could send your FH fraudulent demands to Which and ask them to complain to the "National Fraud Authority " and "Investigation Branch of companies House."

BigBaldTone
21-04-2010, 09:59 AM
Check the insurance - our managing agents used to sort it and FHM when they bought the freehold decided they wanted to do it. Think though it may be in the lease that they have to insure it.

The more people that stand up to this company the better in my opinion

Just checked the insurance, and FHM do insure the building using Zurich Insurance. Nothing I can see in the documentation that relats to tenants......

Am sending my initial response to FHM today, based on your earlier letter. Suspect I'll then get the 2nd "standard" response from them at some point......

Watch this space!!:cool:

anniebea
21-04-2010, 12:25 PM
Same insurance company too!!!!.

When you send them letter I would mentione that you have checked insurance and there is not stupulation in the policy that you have to get thier consent. They may go away and you may not get thier second letter..............

I wish this company would stop wasting our time with these demands which are not supported by lease or insurance clauses..

BigBaldTone
23-04-2010, 09:58 AM
Letter sent to FHM today (April 23rd), as below:

With reference to your letter of 12th April 2010 which was received on 16th April 2010 in which you request an administration fee for your consent to let the above property. Please advise under which clause in the lease you are making this request. There is no clause in the lease which requires myself to gain your consent to let the property.
Furthermore, I’ve checked the insurance details for the building, and there isn’t a stipulation in the policy that requires the insurance companies consent.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.


Will update as and when I get any response.......:cool:

Gordon999
24-04-2010, 23:14 PM
Are these letters demanding "subletting fees" from Freehold Managers PLC signed by anyone ? Are these demands made on behalf of the freehold company FM ( Nominees) or Solitaire which owns FM plc ?

Similar letters are sent to leaseholders by E&M which is also part of same group of companies all controled by Consensus Business Group. E&M have been asking for 370 pds global consent fee and 75 pds for each sublet tenant.

I think if your leases do not provide for such payment to the Lessor , this group of companies are making speculative demands which are fraudulent and a breech under Fraud Act 2006 ( section 2, Fraud by Misrepresentation ) against the leaseholders.

Another company Peverel , recently taken over by Consensus Business group, is engaged in managing many Macarthy & Stone retirement homes and many service charges have now been grossly inflated.

An organisation which has started up to fight against leasehold exploitation in retirement homes is CARLEX. See www.carlex.org.uk which is now sponsoring a candidate in the May 2010 general election - see their website www.clip.uk.net .

So all these demands you are facing is part of an organised rip-off actions engaged by a myriad of companies controlled by Consensus Business Group. Many leaseholders are trapped by their leases and asked to pay for excessive building maintenance service charges at sites where the freehold has been bought by Consensus companies.

So report your freehold company and make a written complaint to the Authorities including your local Trading Standards and local MP ( and Housing Minister ) , National Fraud Authority and "Companies Investigation Branch" of Companies House.

anniebea
25-04-2010, 13:01 PM
The first letter I received had no signature on it. Just a typed signature of:

FREEHOLD MANGER PLC
for and on behalf of Freehold managers nominees

Subsequent letters had a scrawled signature but it’s eligible.

I have written to the company’s investigation branch; intend to write to my MP (after the election). How do you raise this with Trading Standards? – is there a national contact for this or do you contact your local office?

I didn’t realise how widespread this practice is particularly with this group of companies.

Please can I urge anyone who is in this position, to challenge any unsubstantiated demands

mstar
25-04-2010, 14:39 PM
annibea+others

I have just received the exact same letter as you did they want a admin fee £193 and a annual sub letting fee. I have a apartment in Birmingham, which i had for 6 years or so.

Sorry i tried to read the thread 2 times, but wanted to make sure what should i do first?

1.Ring
2.Send them a letter?

I am unsure what to say if i ring them as last time i rang them about a ground rent issue they seem very well rehearsed in the laws etc.

Is there any template letter or key facts i can state to "shut them up"?? (would this be in my leaseholders contract or insurance which Freeholders gave me when we got insurance premium)
Any help would be very welcome.

anniebea
25-04-2010, 14:56 PM
annibea+others

I have just received the exact same letter as you did they want a admin fee £193 and a annual sub letting fee. I have a apartment in Birmingham, which i had for 6 years or so.

Sorry i tried to read the thread 2 times, but wanted to make sure what should i do first?

1.Ring
2.Send them a letter?

I am unsure what to say if i ring them as last time i rang them about a ground rent issue they seem very well rehearsed in the laws etc.

Is there any template letter or key facts i can state to "shut them up"??
Any help would be very welcome.


Check your lease and if you do not have to get freeholders consent send a letter similar to that in Post 50.

Write to them, rather than phone as you have no proof of what they may say in a phone call.

If you know other people in your block who are subletting alert them to this.

mstar
15-05-2010, 07:59 AM
ok peeps checked my lease what it says is that: [not at any time during the Term] the sub-let the whole or any part of the demised premises save that an under-letting of the whole of the demised premises is permitted in the case of a assured shorthold tenancy agreement (or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of the tenancy for the tenant) with prior written consent of the lessor or its agent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)

So it this basically a demand that i need to pay (whatever amount they say)??:confused:
Jeffery or anyone got any ideas?

mr.mobi
16-05-2010, 12:07 PM
Hi guys,

I have a property in Enfield and have received this exact letter myself only yesterday. I agree with the theory its just a speculative letter to generate revenue by scaring people into paying.

I have written back using anniebea's template and will report back!

jeffrey
16-05-2010, 15:28 PM
ok peeps checked my lease what it says is that: [not at any time during the Term] the sub-let the whole or any part of the demised premises save that an under-letting of the whole of the demised premises is permitted in the case of a assured shorthold tenancy agreement (or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of the tenancy for the tenant) with prior written consent of the lessor or its agent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)
You cannot sublet whole or part unless it's by AST.
Even then, you need prior written consent. L cannot withhold/delay this unless there's a good reason.

jeffrey
16-05-2010, 15:28 PM
Jeffery or anyone got any ideas?
Who's that, then?

JeffREy.

BigBaldTone
17-05-2010, 08:49 AM
Letter sent to FHM today (April 23rd), as below:

With reference to your letter of 12th April 2010 which was received on 16th April 2010 in which you request an administration fee for your consent to let the above property. Please advise under which clause in the lease you are making this request. There is no clause in the lease which requires myself to gain your consent to let the property.
Furthermore, I’ve checked the insurance details for the building, and there isn’t a stipulation in the policy that requires the insurance companies consent.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.


Will update as and when I get any response.......:cool:

21 day deadline passed last Friday (14/05/10), and nothing received from FHM. So, I'll not be paying anything a thing!!!
Will update as and when anything is received or I hear anything further........

salzuflen
18-05-2010, 11:54 AM
Just joined. We have a tenanted flat and the freeholder's managing agents are sending us yearly bills for GBP98 to sublet the flat. The lease mentions that we must pay reasonable costs to register the tenant with them but there is no mention of a yearly licence and registration fee. Do we have to pay it? We paid it in Feb 2008 but not in 2009 or 2010 as we have been arguing with them since.

Demon Lee
20-05-2010, 11:12 AM
Be careful you could be looking at the WRONG part of the Lease....

You need to have a look at the section of the Lease dealing with Buildings Insurance as it will often be a case that you are required to notify the Head Lesse/Lessor of any material facts that could affect the Premium to be increased or cause the Policy to be Void.

I know of Freeholders & Management Companies whereby they have a Policy that does NOT cover sub-letting as it COSTS extra which is unfair on those leaseholders that are in residence, so they charge a fee to register a sub-let and pay an additional premium to the Insurer to cover just your premises....

anniebea
22-05-2010, 18:16 PM
Be careful you could be looking at the WRONG part of the Lease....

You need to have a look at the section of the Lease dealing with Buildings Insurance as it will often be a case that you are required to notify the Head Lesse/Lessor of any material facts that could affect the Premium to be increased or cause the Policy to be Void.

I know of Freeholders & Management Companies whereby they have a Policy that does NOT cover sub-letting as it COSTS extra which is unfair on those leaseholders that are in residence, so they charge a fee to register a sub-let and pay an additional premium to the Insurer to cover just your premises....

Freehold Managers insure our building, we have details of the policy and this consent is NOT required as part of the policy.
They send these letter out without consulting any documnets and admitted in a letter that they automatically send out a letter demanding a fee to any properties where the correspondance address is different from the property address

midlifecrisismil
12-06-2010, 12:03 PM
Hi you guys out there have just joined the forum.

Freehold Managers have also tried to rip me off for "retrospective consent" to let my apartment for £193.87 and an annual fee of £129.25.

So a great big thank you to you all for the information that I have read on here and I am writing to them to tell them to get lost.

Had I not read the posts on here I think that I may well have paid up and I am sure that there are lots of people out there who will do just that so I am going to write to my MP as there is a village nearby where there are loads of buy to lets and these people need to be stopped.

Once again a MASSIVE THANKS:D

Milly

anniebea
12-06-2010, 14:04 PM
Another sucess, but as you say so many will just pay up. Do you have your your own managment company for the property, I assume its flats? if so make other people aware of it through that route. There are four owners in our small block that sublet so thats four less payments that this company are not entitled to, which they will not get.

ronmurphy
12-06-2010, 15:38 PM
I too received the exact same demand from Freehold Managers and, after a quick search, found this thread. I wrote back as suggested and, guess what, received standard letter number 2! Actually, the second letter doesn't actually demand any payment so what do you recommend - send another letter or just ignore it? I'm tempted with the latter - I don't see why I should waste any more of my time on this company.

I had a previous run in with FHM when they demanded 6 years of ground rent in one go together with a hefty admin fee for late payment! I had to give in with the overdue rent but, as it was the first I'd heard about it, I refused to pay the admin charge. They never questioned it.

A big thank you to annie et al for making this public. I almost reached for my cheque book when I got the first letter. I'm now glad I didn't.

anniebea
12-06-2010, 15:45 PM
If your lease and building insurance do not say that you need any consent then you shouldnt pay them. I would write back and ask them to prove on what gounds they can demand this money otherwise you will consider teh matter closed.

I have a letter stating that they send this speculative demand out when the owners correspondance address does not match the property address. If they cannot furnish you with this proof you should NOT pay. They are not entitled to this money in most cases in this thread.

leaseholdanswers
13-06-2010, 12:16 PM
I. Write and say please provide me with the the extract of the lease which requires your consent or notification and where I am required to pay a fee or adminsitration charge.

2. Remind them that under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 payment cannot be demanded or enforced ( ie via the court) unless it contains a summary of rights and obligations.

In short this is throwing mud at a barn door, some of it might stick, in this case a few frightened owners sending in a cheque! But I am sure its really for good management purposes......

If its more that £60 odd for a letter or £170 if a licence is needed then challenge at the LVT.

mr.mobi
16-06-2010, 09:13 AM
UPDATE:

I wrote and asked where in the lease it says I had to comply with this letter and this is the response I got (which had a scrawled signature but no name similar to anniebea's ):

We refer to recent correspondnece regarding the letting of your property.

We require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their property obtain Landlords Consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement.

The Freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification proces that they have approved a sub-tenant. The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub-letting.

This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the Freeholder must be of each sub-tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use of the property.

We trust this answers your queries.

After speaking to my solicitor he has advised that I should pay it, but I intend to write back and find out exactly what the money covers first..

anniebea
16-06-2010, 10:26 AM
UPDATE:

I wrote and asked where in the lease it says I had to comply with this letter and this is the response I got (which had a scrawled signature but no name similar to anniebea's ):

We refer to recent correspondnece regarding the letting of your property.

We require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their property obtain Landlords Consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement.

The Freeholder needs to inform the insurer through a formal notification proces that they have approved a sub-tenant. The insurer requires this formal notification to comply with their policy on sub-letting.

This is in order to protect all parties and themselves in the event of a claim. Approval by the Freeholder must be of each sub-tenant to ensure that they have knowledge of who is living in the property and who has full use of the property.

We trust this answers your queries.

After speaking to my solicitor he has advised that I should pay it, but I intend to write back and find out exactly what the money covers first..


Unless your lease says that you have to get thier consent, I do not believe that you have to pay them anything, and in fact these costs are way over what is reasonable.

This is standard letter number 2 which I got. We manage our own block and our insurance, arranged by FHM through Zurich does not require this. Does your insurance require this approval?

On what grounds did your solicitor say you should pay - has he read the copy of your lease and seen your insurance certificate and do these say that this consent is required?.

As a previously stated I have a letter from them admittng they send out this standard letter if you do not live at the address. Unless they can provide proof you should not pay them anything.

leaseholdanswers
16-06-2010, 10:51 AM
Thats hysterical. You can reply

Unless the lease specifically requires me to obtain the landlords consent, and in view of your reply, either you have been unwilling to review the lease and respond, or the lease makes no such requirement.

I will give you a further seven days to respond to my question otherwise I do not believe I need to respond to your letters.

I am happy to undertake that on each letting to provide you and the insurers updated contact details for myself and the occupants for emergencies such as a leak. These are provided below.

( if you havent got it) I formally request a summary of the insurance cover under section 30A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 within the time limits and at no cost as set out in the Act, so thatI may advise them.

If the lease does require the landlords consent then please provide me with an invoice together with the sumary of rights and obligations under the commonhold and leasehold reform act 2002 as I consider the costs you mention unreasonable and will challenge these at the LVT.

Stil laughing at their amateur snippy letter!!!

anniebea
16-06-2010, 11:06 AM
Totally agree if FHM cannot provide proof that thier consent is required then you SHOULD NOT be comtemplating paying this charge.

In any other circumstance would you pay for something that the person/company demanding the money is not entitled to? I suspect not.

leaseholder001
16-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Does this not highlight a bit of a loophole in the law?

As this isn't an approval under the lease it can't be classed as an administration charge and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the LVT.

Just not paying the charge will leave it on the account and when you come to try and sell your flat the managing agent will tell the solicitor that there is an amount to pay and you will most likely pay (including all the other charges they add on for 'non payment'), rather than enter into a dispute which will effectively block the sale of the flat.

Or the freeholder may be able to get your mortgage company to pay with the amount added on to the mortgage debt.

Is it not better dealing with this matter now, with the only option being through the County Court?

anniebea
16-06-2010, 12:05 PM
The first demand is speculative, its an application for consent to sublet. so at that point there should be no charge on your account, they dont know if you have sublet or not. I have never told them I am subletting and given them any names of tenants etc so they have no proof that I have sublet.

As I stated previously, in my case I have a letter from them stating that these fees are not payable under the terms of the lease or the insurance.

leaseholder001
16-06-2010, 13:43 PM
The first demand is speculative, its an application for consent to sublet. so at that point there should be no charge on your account, they dont know if you have sublet or not. I have never told them I am subletting and given them any names of tenants etc so they have no proof that I have sublet.

As I stated previously, in my case I have a letter from them stating that these fees are not payable under the terms of the lease or the insurance.

Yes, I now see that you have had a letter stating you are not liable to this payment. That would appear to get you off the hook.

Others in the same predicament may not be as successful and they should definately think of sorting the matter out sooner rather than later. Telling them to "get lost" or ignoring the matter may lead to the problems I point out above.

As you point out, they are pretty sure who is subletting from the different addresses they have compared to the land registry records.

anniebea
16-06-2010, 14:13 PM
The fact that the addresses are different doesnt always prove that you are subletting. In our block one property is owned by someone who works part of the week here, but whose main home is another part of the country. He would get thsi letter, but he doesnt sublet.

I will check but I think the first letter I recieved wasnt an invoice so no figure would have been placed on my account.

I do agree that it is better to get a letter stating that no money is payable under terms of the lease.

leaseholdanswers
16-06-2010, 15:19 PM
My suggested reply is to force them to reply or shut up. Seeking confirmation suggests weakness, and if they did the LVT quickly and very inexpensively by written application will rule that it is not a service or administration charge. The landlord can only charge you if the lease allows.

If they go quiet then the proper way, and I expected you wanted a quicker way, to deal with it is get a copy of your lease post the section on this forum and suggestions will be made.

PS This is not the first time that I have dealt with FHM on this regular fishing expedition- thats all I can say...

leaseholdanswers
16-06-2010, 16:02 PM
I quote from another post on consents particularly the last line! A little bird tells me a new wrinkle that staff in a big company are being given tough targets so we can expect more of this and less accurate replies and more harrassment.

QUOTE=barretts;220319]Thanks guys, Just out of interest I emailed the company asking for proof this was a breach of the lease. They email me today saying there is no term in the lease and they have noted the withdraw of any consent charges.



I believe they sent this letter to all 30000 of there freeholds and were chancing they arm to see if anyone pays.[/QUOTE]

midlifecrisismil
13-07-2010, 07:57 AM
Hi

I have received letter No. 2 now.

I cant understand - are Freehold Managers my landlord or is someone else?

Presumably if they "require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their proeprty obtain Landlords Consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement" then that should form part of some sort of contract between myself and Freehold Managers? Am I right?

My insurance (I have a copy of the schedule) requires that the insurers are notified of the tenant - can I simply write to the insurance company to tell them?

I am a bit worried about this because like another poster I was hit for a number of years management charges and a bill for legal services. I paid the management charges but refused to pay the legal charges on the grounds that I had not had the demands but then the managing agents changed and they managed to collect the monies because we got a refund of management fees and they knocked the charges off that.

In addition to this I have not had my management charges for this year - I have spoken to them twice and asked them why not but they simply say they have not been issued yet and I am worried that I am going to be hit by another legal fee - would you write to them about this?:confused:

jeffrey
13-07-2010, 10:29 AM
There are two different 'Freehold Managers' companies. One is the agent, and the other is the f/r owner.

leaseholdanswers
13-07-2010, 13:31 PM
Hi

I have received letter No. 2 now.

I cant understand - are Freehold Managers my landlord or is someone else?

Presumably if they "require that any tenant who chooses to sub-let their proeprty obtain Landlords Consent whether or not it is a requirement of the Leasehold Agreement" then that should form part of some sort of contract between myself and Freehold Managers? Am I right?



My insurance (I have a copy of the schedule) requires that the insurers are notified of the tenant - can I simply write to the insurance company to tell them?



I am a bit worried about this because like another poster I was hit for a number of years management charges and a bill for legal services. I paid the management charges but refused to pay the legal charges on the grounds that I had not had the demands but then the managing agents changed and they managed to collect the monies because we got a refund of management fees and they knocked the charges off that.



In addition to this I have not had my management charges for this year - I have spoken to them twice and asked them why not but they simply say they have not been issued yet and I am worried that I am going to be hit by another legal fee - would you write to them about this?:confused:





Unless you signed another contract, the only contract is the lease. Insist that they point to the clause(s) as that is the only contract you have with them and therefore the only legal basis that they have. Offer to go to LEASE mediation if they refuse to prove it. (lease-advice.org)

Yes write to insurers and copy F/H Mgrs

If they persist then invite them to apply to the LVT to rule.

Yes tell them that the demands ( its set out in the lease eg 1st Jan) have not be received, but ensure you do my email ( read receipts) post (recorded delivery) and fax ( TX report) as a record.

ronmurphy
13-07-2010, 19:02 PM
After I received my second letter, and after reading all the comments in this thread, I have refused to engage further with FHM. I have heard nothing since. Also, I have noticed that on the agenda for my management company's next meeting is an item to discuss wrongful charges made by FHM regarding sub-lets. I'll post the outcome of the discussion. This company is blatantly sending these letters to everyone on their books with different correspondence addresses in the hope that some will pay up.

leaseholdanswers
14-07-2010, 14:41 PM
1. If they consider you to be in breach that might be why they havent sent a bill, so keep writing to them once a month reminding them you've not had a bill; make sure the tenant in the flat will forward any mail ( I leave a supply of stamped envelopes); just cover yourself please.


2. Its called " if you throw enough mud at a barn door, some of it will stick".

I suggest you all consider right to manage, enfranchise (buy ) the freehold, or knowing that will take some work and cash, apply to the LVT to appoint an independant manager. At least form an RTA. See lease-advise.org

ram
15-07-2010, 08:22 AM
Can one withdraw consent to sublet.

As most leases state :-
A request from lessee to sublet their flat can not be reasonably refused.

If consent is given, when you have no idea if the Flat owner will do it himself and make a bad job, or employ a letting agent that wont evict when eviction is the only answer, Then if after 3 years of owner sub-letting produces hassle and constant breeches of the head lease every 6 months, and it is quite clear that subtenants in that flat are always going to be a problem and the owner just does not care,

Then can you retract the authorisation to sublet based of proof that it is a perpetual nightmare, and it be legal to withdraw authorisation ?

The only recourse is forfeiture of the flat, but have read here recently that this is almost impossible, as judges wont give an order for forfeiture ( Poor Mr X, we cant take his flat off him, and other tenants in the block will just have to watch the head lease being broken every 6 months for the rest of their lives ! )

If authorisation can be given, it can be taken away ? yes / no ?

Thanks in anticipation.

R.a.M.

leaseholder001
15-07-2010, 09:47 AM
The only recourse is forfeiture of the flat, but have read here recently that this is almost impossible, as judges wont give an order for forfeiture ( Poor Mr X, we cant take his flat off him, and other tenants in the block will just have to watch the head lease being broken every 6 months for the rest of their lives ! )


Do you not have a clause in your lease that says the leaseholder must pay for any costs relating to a section 146 notice?

If you do and the tenants are breaking covenants then get a solicitor on the case. You don't have to be successful, the potential cost should focus the attention of the leaseholder.

ram
15-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Do you not have a clause in your lease that says the leaseholder must pay for any costs relating to a section 146 notice?

Yes, but only if we win, I would assume.
If we win and he loses his flat, offending leaseholder pays all costs.
If we lose and judge says mr x has agreed never to break the lease again, and can keep his flat, then we have lost the original case of forfiture, so we then have costs to pay ?



If you do and the tenants are breaking covenants then get a solicitor on the case. You don't have to be successful, the potential cost should focus the attention of the leaseholder.

there are a few recent posts on here saying that judges are VERY reluctant to take someones home off them, so we dont want to go that route.

Reasonable cause to refuse subletting is there is too much agrevation every change of tennats. The flat owner can sell, buy somewhere else to rent and "not care" at that new address it they wish.

jeffrey
15-07-2010, 10:45 AM
One cannot resile from a consent on which someone has already relied and acted. If L gives consent for T to sublet and T does sublet to subT1, that consent is irrevocable. If T later wants to sublet to subT2 instead, a new consent is needed and L could refuse it if there is a valid case for so doing.

To avoid these problems, all consents to sublet should be:
a. time limited (i.e. T can sublet within two months); and
b. specific (i.e. T can sublet only to a named subT).

ram
15-07-2010, 11:27 AM
If T later wants to sublet to subT2 instead, a new consent is needed and L could refuse it if there is a valid case for so doing.

Current flat owner has no subtenants, and property vacant. ( Subtenants have just left )

If he wishes to sublet on a new AST to new tenants, does he have to ask permission to sublet ( I hope so )
I know you may have just said that above, but legal jargon confuses most on here.

Thanks.

leaseholder001
15-07-2010, 11:34 AM
Current flat owner has no subtenants, and property vacant. ( Subtenants have just left )

If he wishes to sublet on a new AST to new tenants, does he have to ask permission to sublet ( I hope so )
I know you may have just said that above, but legal jargon confuses most on here.

Thanks.

I have been informed by LEASE-ADVICE that permission must be given unless the proposed tenants will be in breach of the covenants. For example, if your lease says residents must be over 65, then you can refuse if they are not. You cannot refuse based on the behaviour of earlier tenants.

leaseholdanswers
15-07-2010, 12:04 PM
1. Ermm what does the lease ACTUALLY say- does it require landlords consent, or only if tenancies are eg more than a year. RAM I dont think your 1st post said.

2. To summarise, if it does, you cannot unreasonably withold consent, each underletting is treated on its own merits, and consent, subject to 1, is on a "let by let " basis, and a consent should be for that letting for the term and named tenants.

3. If the lease allows, and I would try anyway, and ask the owner to include in the tenancy mirror clauses ie the same as your leases, such as noise dogs pests etc, and any regulations.
It can be done by a simple appendix on the back.

Persaude the owner that if there are future problems the two should be consistant so you can both resolve it quickly and prevent service charge increases from legal costs ( even if you can recover some from him).

ameet35
15-07-2010, 15:10 PM
I hope you can help. My situation is as follows (apologies for the detail):

1. I own a flat (newbuild - 2004, leasehold, 150 years left to run)
2. It is rented out via an agent
3. My management company is OM management (previously Peverel OM) and ground rent is collected from E&M

Once I changed my correspondance address I have received a number of letters from E&M claiming that they believe that I may be subletting and hence need their approval by completing an attached application form, with fees of £210 and then £75 for any subsequent new tenancies.

My lease states the following:

Schedule 8: covenants by the lessee - PART ONE - covenants enforceable by the Lessor and the Manager

“No 25: Not at any time during the Term Underlet the Demised Premises without prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) PROVIDED ALWAYS that such under letting shall be by means of either an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant after the term of any such agreement shall have expired AND ALSO to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every such consent”

I have read through most of the posts. The 2 below which have left me quite confused:

- Freehold Managers demand fee to consent to sublet (by anniebea)
- Seeking {Mod - name removed} consent to sublet (by trigger)

My questions are:

1. Am a liable to getting their consent as I am the leaseholder?
2. What would happen if I simply wrote back to them saying it is my second residence and alter my correspondance back to the flat
3. I have read a few LVT cases regarding the admin fee, which should be no higher than £35+VAT - can I therefore contest E&M on this?


Many thanks for your help and looking into this further.

leaseholdanswers
15-07-2010, 15:25 PM
Schedule 8 section 25 is in a widely seen form of lease on new builds so the answer is easy.

1. Yes you have to get consent.
2.If you changed the address back you would be in breach, if they found out you were underletting as opposed to its your second home and you have a non paying cousin staying.
3. £210 is just plain silly. If it were a formal licence fine, however this is letter of consent and should be no more than £50 plus VAT.

Tell them that you have googled LVT decisions and you can see that figures of £35 to £50 have been mentioned, and will challenge it.

In practice as long as the tenant behaves, the tenacy does not contravene the lease- a standard assured shorthold will suffice- there is little that they can actually due other than be a nuisance.

jeffrey
15-07-2010, 16:26 PM
a standard assured shorthold will suffice.
It's either:
a. an assured shorthold tenancy; or
b. a standard assured tenancy.

It can't be "a standard assured shorthold"; there's no such thing.

dominic
15-07-2010, 16:30 PM
It's either:
a. an assured shorthold tenancy; or
b. a standard assured tenancy.

It can't be "a standard assured shorthold"; there's no such thing.

Yes there could be, it is not incorrect. An agreement creating an assured shorthold tenancy with standard or customary provisions might be called a "standard assured shorthold" for short.

To add to leaseholdanswers comments, the fee charged for consent must be reasonable. £210 + 75 is not reasonable. You would win if challenged.

Withholding consent for non-payment of an unreasonable fee is unreasonable.

Therefore if they refuse your offer of a reasonable fee (of say £50) or do not respond for more than a few weeks, you have deemed consent, and they don't really have any comeback.

jeffrey
15-07-2010, 16:34 PM
To add to leaseholdanswers comments, the fee charged for consent must be reasonable. £210 + 75 is not reasonable. You would win if challenged.

Withholding consent for non-payment of an unreasonable fee is unreasonable.

Therefore if they refuse your offer of a reasonable fee (of say £50) or do not respond for more than a few weeks, you have deemed consent, and they don't really have any comeback.
I agree as to this, at least. Also refer to s.19(1) of LTA 1927 re unlawful withholding/delaying of consent.

dominic
15-07-2010, 16:37 PM
I agree as to this, at least. Also refer to s.19(1) of LTA 1927 re unlawful withholding/delaying of consent.

As belts and braces. However you can rely on the wording of the lease too.

dominic
15-07-2010, 16:41 PM
One cannot resile from a consent on which someone has already relied and acted. If L gives consent for T to sublet and T does sublet to subT1, that consent is irrevocable. If T later wants to sublet to subT2 instead, a new consent is needed and L could refuse it if there is a valid case for so doing.

To avoid these problems, all consents to sublet should be:
a. time limited (i.e. T can sublet within two months); and
b. specific (i.e. T can sublet only to a named subT).

It is only irrevocable if it is expressed to be irrevocable.

However, if lessee relies on the consent after subletting the propertym, and it is revokedI think it would be unreasonable to withhold regranting consent until at least the end of the tenancy fixed term (or if a SPT, a until T vacates).

There may also be arguments for promissory estoppel here (shield not a sword and all that).

ameet35
15-07-2010, 22:54 PM
As belts and braces. However you can rely on the wording of the lease too.
Many thanks for all your valuable opinions. I will probably go done the route of offering an admin fee of £35-50 based on previous LVTs.

Ps- please clarify your last statement Dominic...in what way can I rely on the wording of the lease??

Lastly, I find this whole situation very disturbing that companies are simply tapping into the lease clauses and there appears no legislation against such activity. I obtained consent to rent from my mortgage company with no associated fee...why should it not be the same, as all that is involved is printing off a letter and updating a database!!

dominic
16-07-2010, 10:15 AM
“No 25: Not at any time during the Term Underlet the Demised Premises without prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) PROVIDED ALWAYS that such under letting shall be by means of either an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant after the term of any such agreement shall have expired AND ALSO to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every such consent”

This is the wording of your lease I was referring to. The bold mirrors what is stated in the LTA 1927 as Jeffrey points out.

So, if you were ever challeneged, you can say that you have relied on:

a. the statutory protection afforded to you by the LTA 1927; and
b. the contractual protection afforded to you under sch 8 of the lease,

to have been satisfied that youi have deemed consent, in the event consent is unreasonably withheld or delayed.

jeffrey
16-07-2010, 10:25 AM
there appears no legislation against such activity.
But there is: section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. See post #12 on http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27060

leaseholdanswers
16-07-2010, 14:03 PM
Bit pedantic chaps or over interpretation of construction!

I was alluding to a standard assured shorthold, which in common language would be understood to be standard, as opposed to not requiring a custom document.

jeffrey
16-07-2010, 14:05 PM
Nope- Standard Assured Tenancy is quite distinct from Assured Shorthold Tenancy. If you mean an AST, please say so and avoid confusion.

leaseholdanswers
16-07-2010, 14:11 PM
This clause is drafted in this way as it is not intended by developers to manage effectively the underletting of flats, especially since the 88 act rendered many of the older leases toothless where they required formal licence references and guarentees.

To answer the OP issue

1. It ensures the developer/ landlord the agent to ensure that there is an impediment to underletting without providing them and their agents with a contact address.

2. Yes agents do abuse this on the basis that enough mud some will stick, and that challenging the fee is seen as more expensive than paying it. Not so of course.

leaseholdanswers
16-07-2010, 14:17 PM
Nope- Standard Assured Tenancy is quite distinct from Assured Shorthold Tenancy. If you mean an AST, please say so and avoid confusion.

No so; I stated standard assured shorthold which cannot be read as standard assured or standard assured tenancy.

Standard as the average person would understand describes the article "assured shorthold", a commonly used standard description of the "AST".

I understand your perspective and if instructing you would have been entirely specific.

jeffrey
16-07-2010, 14:20 PM
If the average person would understand describes the article "assured shorthold", a commonly used standard description, that proves your error in giving that averagely-understood expression a not-averagely-understood prefix conflating it with a quite dissimilar statutory entity.

sarjenks
16-07-2010, 14:37 PM
Many thanks for all your valuable opinions. I will probably go done the route of offering an admin fee of £35-50 based on previous LVTs.

Ps- please clarify your last statement Dominic...in what way can I rely on the wording of the lease??

Lastly, I find this whole situation very disturbing that companies are simply tapping into the lease clauses and there appears no legislation against such activity. I obtained consent to rent from my mortgage company with no associated fee...why should it not be the same, as all that is involved is printing off a letter and updating a database!!

Hi,

I have just come across this forum and was very interested to read about your situation as it has many parallels to my own. I am looking to start renting in a couple of months and have just found out about the huge fees which E&M are charging. Could you let me know how you get on and who you speak to at E & M / what process you go through as I would also like to contest these disgracefully high fees.

Thanks in advance for your help! Good luck!

SubletPage
05-08-2010, 09:35 AM
Hi,

I got a letter from e&m acting for Perveral a while ago about paying this fee. I wrote back as others have done here asking for them to state which parts of my lease say that I must pay this.

Today they have written back stating 2 clause the first clause has been brought up on this thread and replied to in #57 which I am not worried about.

However this clause I am concerned about:
"Within one month after the date of any and every assignment transfer mortgage charge under-lease or tenancy agreement (including any immediate or derivative under-lease or tenancy agreement aforesaid) or the Demise Premises for any term assignment of such under-lease or grant probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing of or affecting the Demised Premises or devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give or procure to be given to the Secretary to the Manager notice in writing of such disposition or devolution or transfer of title with full particulars thereof and in the case of an under-lease if required by the Manager a copy thereof for registration and retention by it AND ALSO at the same time to produce or cause to be produced to them the document affecting or (as the case may be) evidencing such disposition or other matter and to pay or cause to be paid at the same time to the Manager's Secretary such reasonable fee appropriate at the time of registration in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the Demised Premises PROVIDED ALWAYS that in the case of contemporaneous transfer and mortgage fee shall only be payable on the one of such matters

Does this part of the lease mean I have to pay this fee to them every time I get a tenant in or I draw up a new tenancy agreement?

The letter that they wrote points to wrongly numbered clauses and both clauses that they sent are actually slightly different from the ones which they included in the letter so for now I am going to write back and ask them to outline the exact clauses in my specific agreement (Clause 20.1 doesn't exist and Clause 22 doesn't state the same as the clause above).

Any help on this matter would be great!
Thanks

Edit:
After reading some more on this through the forum this is the letter I am thinking of writing back with, please let me know what you think:

With reference to your letter of 2nd August which states the clauses which I had asked for. Firstly points 20.1 and 22 do not correspond to the clauses in my lease so can you please just confirm you are looking at the correct lease. (I have found a clause similar to point 20.1, which you included in your letter, however mine is worded differently and basically states that I may sub-let the property if I have an AST in place, which I do).

The second clause (point 22 in your letter) does not entitle any consent fee it states that the Tenant must notify the Lessor with four weeks of any change of ownership, creation of discharge of mortgage, grant of representation or any other matter disposing of or affecting the property. Lessor can charge a reasonable notice fee* and on a purchase coinciding with a new mortgage only one fee is a payable.

* Case number: CAM/42US/LAC/2008/0001 - rpts.gov.uk/Files/2008/March/10000SDO.htm
Please see the summary section of this which was a recent case which deemed a reasonable charge as £35 + VAT.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.

Kind regards

jeffrey
05-08-2010, 10:34 AM
Does this part of the lease mean I have to pay this fee to them every time I get a tenant in or I draw up a new tenancy agreement?
Every new underletting, inc. a renewal granted to same T, or even an assignment of an existing underletting. Sorry!

SubletPage
05-08-2010, 11:31 AM
Thanks for the reply Jeffrey.

As you mentioned here: landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=164663&postcount=111

Does this still apply to my clause and what I have written in my letter justified?

jeffrey
05-08-2010, 11:41 AM
Pleas explain your question.

onam
05-08-2010, 13:11 PM
I have received the exact same demand, checked the lease , no mention of subletting.I believe this is a try on, suggest we complain to trading standards this cannot be legal.

leaseholdanswers
05-08-2010, 18:13 PM
Not strictly a scam as its half right. Refer to your lease and what it requires, quote it and best of all, if you do not need their consent;

" I choose for convenience to have post sent to ( your other address) please do not write to me on the assumption that I am subletting, or that I require consent when I do not. I understand that you have made an error and having explained that I expect not to hear from you further"

Let them play with that, or give notice as the lease requires say £35 plus VAT

SubletPage
06-08-2010, 02:48 AM
Pleas explain your question.

In this reply: landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=164663&postcount=111

You explained in less legal terms what the clause I stated above means. This is what I have included in my letter back and I just wanted to make sure this was relevant and acceptable?:

With reference to your letter of 2nd August which states the clauses which I had asked for. Firstly points 20.1 and 22 do not correspond to the clauses in my lease so can you please just confirm you are looking at the correct lease. (I have found a clause similar to point 20.1, which you included in your letter, however mine is worded differently and basically states that I may sub-let the property if I have an AST in place, which I do).

The second clause (point 22 in your letter) does not entitle any consent fee it states that the Tenant must notify the Lessor with four weeks of any change of ownership, creation of discharge of mortgage, grant of representation or any other matter disposing of or affecting the property. Lessor can charge a reasonable notice fee* and on a purchase coinciding with a new mortgage only one fee is a payable.

* Case number: CAM/42US/LAC/2008/0001 - rpts.gov.uk/Files/2008/March/10000SDO.htm
Please see the summary section of this which was a recent case which deemed a reasonable charge as £35 + VAT.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.

Kind regards

jeffrey
06-08-2010, 10:48 AM
In this reply: landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=164663&postcount=111
Please let me know if you do not understand how LZ links work. What you meant is http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=164663&postcount=111

SubletPage
06-08-2010, 12:47 PM
Please let me know if you do not understand how LZ links work. What you meant is landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=164663&postcount=111

I am told:
"To be able to post links or images your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 3 posts."

Which is why I can't send link but I can send the truncated ones which will still work if you copy and paste in the browser - but yes that this the link and I appreciate your opinion. Thanks

jeffrey
06-08-2010, 14:01 PM
OK- keep up involvement and you'll reach 10!

SubletPage
06-08-2010, 18:09 PM
Jeffrey do you mind giving any pointers on the letter below that I am going to send which is based on what you said in that link to your comment (thanks):

With reference to your letter of 2nd August which states the clauses which I had asked for. Firstly points 20.1 and 22 do not correspond to the clauses in my lease so can you please just confirm you are looking at the correct lease. (I have found a clause similar to point 20.1, which you included in your letter, however mine is worded differently and basically states that I may sub-let the property if I have an AST in place, which I do).

The second clause (point 22 in your letter) does not entitle any consent fee it states that the Tenant must notify the Lessor with four weeks of any change of ownership, creation of discharge of mortgage, grant of representation or any other matter disposing of or affecting the property. Lessor can charge a reasonable notice fee* and on a purchase coinciding with a new mortgage only one fee is a payable.

* Case number: CAM/42US/LAC/2008/0001 - rpts.gov.uk/Files/2008/March/10000SDO.htm
Please see the summary section of this which was a recent case which deemed a reasonable charge as £35 + VAT.

Please respond within 21 days of the date of this letter. If I do not receive a response within that time I will consider that this matter is closed and no further action is required on my part.

Century
08-08-2010, 18:17 PM
Help needed please!

Last August received letter from Peverel stating that our lease contains covenant wrt subletting.
Peverel say "It has come to our attention that the above property may be sublet and you may not have been aware that consent is required from us for subletting. If you have not sublet your property please inform us so that we can amend our records and we apologise for the inconvenience.
If you are subletting your property please complete the encolsed application form, along with appropriate admin fee etc...."

And the last paragraph - "Please note if we do not receive a response to this letter within the next 28 days we will assume that you are subletting your property and we reserve our right of action in respect of any breach of covenant in relation to the same."

Well, we are subletting and do not have prior written consent, and did not respond to the letter (because the unit is within a huge development of over 1,000 units and it is impossible for Peverel to check all)

Now, nealy 1 year later, a new letter saying that we did not resond and that the lease contains a covenant etc. Then they -
"Would be grateful for your confirmation in writing within next 21 days that:
1)you are not subletting
2)your property is vacant/unoccupied
3)you have sent a completed application and payment etc
4)your property is occupied by a previous tenant for which you had consent etc

Next part of letter is the threat-
"If we do not hear..within 21 days....we would be obliged to contact your mortgagees to inform them of this situation and to instruct solicitors to issue court proceedings against you for a determination of breach of covenant inthis regard under Section 81 of the Housing Act." and All costs etc would be charged to the account for your property and such action could result in forfeiture blah blah.

During this past year, we have had service charge and groud rent demands which have all be paid in full and all accounts are clear.

Am I right in thinking that Landlord has waived its rights to forfeit the lease, because a) it knew of the breach (by the fact that I did not respond to the first letter) and b) it recognises the lease as exitsing by demanding and collecting rent?

jeffrey
08-08-2010, 20:52 PM
'Recognising the lease' is not the issue. Even knowing of the breach is not critical. Has L issued a clear ground rent receipt, however?

Century
09-08-2010, 10:44 AM
'Recognising the lease' is not the issue. Even knowing of the breach is not critical. Has L issued a clear ground rent receipt, however?

I think that we only have service charge and ground rent demands which show the previous account balance as zero and the new charge/rent as current (but need to check this).
We pay via BACS internet banking and have not received an official receipt. Can we ask for a receipt retrospectively? and can they refuse? or send our money back now, as not accepted?

jeffrey
09-08-2010, 11:13 AM
Yes, you can ask for a retrospective receipt. No, L is not obliged to issue one. And I doubt that F will send any money back!

Century
09-08-2010, 11:33 AM
Yes, you can ask for a retrospective receipt. No, L is not obliged to issue one. And I doubt that F will send any money back!

We can also view our accounts via their website (which are down at the moment)
Do not these electronic and paper statements of account showing monies accepted and balances of zero not count as F accepting the rent and having a clear account? or is it necessary to have an official receipt stating a clear account?

jeffrey
09-08-2010, 11:37 AM
Unless there is a receipt complying with s.45(2) of LPA 1925, you cannot gain that section's benefit. Here it is, with my underlining

Where land sold is held by lease (other than an under-lease), the purchaser shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that the lease was duly granted; and, on production of the receipt for the last payment due for rent under the lease before the date of actual completion of the purchase, he shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that all the covenants and provisions of the lease have been duly performed and observed up to the date of actual completion of the purchase.

leaseholdanswers
09-08-2010, 16:47 PM
Yes, you can ask for a retrospective receipt. No, L is not obliged to issue one. And I doubt that F will send any money back!

I suggest you call the accounts team and say that you are looking to remortgage but the lender wont accept a print out, could someone please send a written receipt for rent and service charge - say that the lender is a jobsworth-empathy gets results.

If they ask about subletting say you have a letter but you are waiting for a reply as your lease wording is not the same as they have.

Century
09-08-2010, 16:51 PM
Unless there is a receipt complying with s.45(2) of LPA 1925, you cannot gain that section's benefit. Here it is, with my underlining

Where land sold is held by lease (other than an under-lease), the purchaser shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that the lease was duly granted; and, on production of the receipt for the last payment due for rent under the lease before the date of actual completion of the purchase, he shall assume, unless the contrary appears, that all the covenants and provisions of the lease have been duly performed and observed up to the date of actual completion of the purchase.

Thanks.

Rent is due on 1st March and Sept - so when we next pay, we contemporaneously ask F for a receipt and they must(?) provide one?

Or, if we are going to sell the property, our solicitor requires a clear receipt (because purchacer's solicitor will require to see it), and F provides one - albeit with an associated cost!

Is this correct?

Century
09-08-2010, 16:53 PM
I suggest you call the accounts team and say that you are looking to remortgage but the lender wont accept a print out, could someone please send a written receipt for rent and service charge - say that the lender is a jobsworth-empathy gets results.

If they ask about subletting say you have a letter but you are waiting for a reply as your lease wording is not the same as they have.

Thanks - our posts crossed in the ether!!

jeffrey
09-08-2010, 16:57 PM
L need not provide a receipt. There's no legal obligation. See post #96.
BUT L might be willing to issue one (and charge you extra for the privilege).

Century
09-08-2010, 17:04 PM
L need not provide a receipt. There's no legal obligation. See post #96.
BUT L might be willing to issue one (and charge you extra for the privilege).

Sorry - I thought #96 was referring to retrospective receipt.

If no legal obligation and L will not provide how can one sell - because when we buy we need to know that the ground rent/service charge accounts are clear?

leaseholdanswers
09-08-2010, 17:05 PM
L need not provide a receipt. There's no legal obligation. See post #96.
BUT L might be willing to issue one (and charge you extra for the privilege).

yes hence suggesting its always worth asking.

leaseholdanswers
09-08-2010, 17:18 PM
At the moment the landlord only suspects that there is a breach,and has asked the question. If they go on to demand and accept rent, I believe that there is a case for waiver,as some weeks now having passed, they have not investigated further,even without a receipt. A qualified receipt or print out would be argueable as the landlord cannot have his cake and eat it. If they were serious they would block demands and payments.As it is revenue based.......

Wait for the next demand and pay it,asking for the receipt then. If the agents are arma or rics they are obligated to provide a receipt but can ask that you send an SAE.

leaseholdanswers
09-08-2010, 17:21 PM
If no legal obligation and L will not provide how can one sell - because when we buy we need to know that the ground rent/service charge accounts are clear?

In practice formal receipts are rarely requested, usually by older residents ( I would say seasoned residents but that irrates some members) and a simple print out is accepted as such.

Century
10-08-2010, 14:44 PM
Our lease states

"..to sublet....is permitted with the prior written consent of the Manager of its agents...(such consent not to be unreasonably witheld or delayed)
and

"Within one month after the date of any and every assignment...or other matter disposing of and affecting the Demised Premises....to give or procur to be given to the Lessor and the Manager notice in writing of such disposition....and if required by the Lessor or Manager a copy of the instrument for registration and retention...and also at the same time to pay or cause to be paid.....such reasonable fees appropriate at the time of registration in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the Demised Premises...."

So, we have to obtain prior consent - as far as I can see no fee is payable for this consent.

Then, when (and if) a tenant moves in, we must give notice to Lessor/Manager and pay a reasonable fee for notice purusal of docs and registration.

Have I got this right, or missed something?

Letter from Management Co. states 2 options for consent
1)Consent for each letting £100+vat and for renewals a registration fee of £25+vat
2)Global Licence to Sublet - usually for buy-to-let investors - one off fee of £295+vat and Notification for each letting including the first and a registration fee is necessary as per lease terms. The registration fee is £25+vat

I think that the reasonable fee is £25+vat!

Advice appreciated.

jeffrey
10-08-2010, 15:05 PM
1. You can sublet but need prior consent from 'the Manager' (M).
2. Consent must not be unreasonably withheld/delayed.
3. Armed with it, you then complete the subletting to subT.
4. Then you serve Notice thereof on M.
5. M states two schemes for its fees.

Century
10-08-2010, 16:41 PM
1. You can sublet but need prior consent from 'the Manager' (M).
2. Consent must not be unreasonably withheld/delayed.
3. Armed with it, you then complete the subletting to subT.
4. Then you serve Notice thereof on M.
5. M states two schemes for its fees.

But can M charge a fee for consent?

jeffrey
10-08-2010, 17:28 PM
But can M charge a fee for consent?
No, unless :
a. the lease says so; or
b. it complies with Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

leaseholdanswers
10-08-2010, 17:49 PM
No, unless :
a. the lease says so; or
b. it complies with Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

There are two issues 1 notification fees and 2 consent fees.

For schedule 11 to apply the fee must be related to "something" in the lease in this case landlords consent.

It must be reasonable and any demand, or indication of cost to be paid( eg your application should be accompanied with your cheque for X) must be accompanied by a summary of rights and obligations.

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=13

sarjenks
16-08-2010, 10:18 AM
Hi again,

I am looking to rent my flat out and have been informed by the managing agents (Estates & Management on behalf of Peverel OM) that I need to pay £300 for a license to sublet (for up to 5 years) plus £37.50 everytime I change tenants.

I believe this amount is unacceptable given that they effectively do nothing for it. Is there any way I can challenge them? Does anyone else have any experience of this?

Would greatly appreciate any help on this, many thanks, Sarah

jeffrey
16-08-2010, 11:09 AM
I think that your query is similar to the others on this thread.
It must always turn on the exact wording of the restriction/prohibition in your flat's lease. What is the precise wording, please?

sarjenks
16-08-2010, 21:43 PM
The wording in the lease states:

'Not at any time during the term - underlet the whole or any part of the Demised Premises save that of underletting of the whole of the Demised Premises is permitted in the case of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreemennt which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant) with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent to not be reasonably withheld or delayed) and also to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every consent.'

I understant that according to this lease I will have to pay something, but how can I justify what 'reasonable' is and are they justified in charging both a license fee as well as a fee every time I change tenants in accordance with this lease?

Thanks in advance for all your help. Sarah

skellis
17-08-2010, 08:15 AM
New to this forum, but need help with a problem we are faced with.

I live in a block of seven leasehold flats, one of them has recently been sold and the new owner has but the flat up for rent.

We always believed that the properties were not to be rented as in in the lease it states that they are for private use only, no boarders or lodgers, does this mean no subletting too?

We believe that the new owner is a member of the family that own the property letting company that he is trying to rent through.

We have our own management company of which we are all directors, do we as members of that company have the powers to stop this person from renting his flat ? All of us are opposed to subletting and we all bought these flats understanding that they could not be let, whenever a flat has been up for sale the estate agents have always been informed of this, but on this occasion it has slipped through.
I contacted the the agent but was told it was nothing to do with them now, the flat was sold.

The remaining residents are very angry, but is there anything we can do ?

leaseholdanswers
17-08-2010, 10:18 AM
The wording in the lease states:

'Not at any time during the term - underlet the whole or any part of the Demised Premises save that of underletting of the whole of the Demised Premises is permitted in the case of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreemennt which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant) with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent to not be reasonably withheld or delayed) and also to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every consent.'

I understant that according to this lease I will have to pay something, but how can I justify what 'reasonable' is and are they justified in charging both a license fee as well as a fee every time I change tenants in accordance with this lease?

Thanks in advance for all your help. Sarah

If you scroll back in the thread you can see the consensus on the fee and its reasonableness and the ways to approach it.

Yes you do need consent each time I am afraid.

Is "not be reasonably withheld" correct? It should be "UNreasonably"

jeffrey
17-08-2010, 10:21 AM
I read your clause as permitting an AST of the whole flat, but the words with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent to not be reasonably withheld or delayed) are 'loose'- do they apply to:
a. 'not to underlet'; or
b. 'not to underlet (save for AST)'?

Maybe it should have read like this (with my amendments in capitals):
Not at any time during the term TO underlet the whole or any part of the Demised Premises (EXCEPT underletting of the whole of the Demised Premises BY an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant) OTHER THAN with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent NOT TO BE UNreasonably withheld or delayed) and also to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every consent.'

sarjenks
17-08-2010, 17:36 PM
If you scroll back in the thread you can see the consensus on the fee and its reasonableness and the ways to approach it.

Yes you do need consent each time I am afraid.

Is "not be reasonably withheld" correct? It should be "UNreasonably"

Sorry, yes you are right - it does say UNreasonably in the lease... I have looked at the previous threads and see that the consensus for a license is up to £100 and £25 - £50 for fees. I know people mention LVT cases - can you point me in the direction of any which relate to this matter?


I read your clause as permitting an AST of the whole flat, but the words with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent to not be reasonably withheld or delayed) are 'loose'- do they apply to:
a. 'not to underlet'; or
b. 'not to underlet (save for AST)'?

Maybe it should have read like this (with my amendments in capitals):
Not at any time during the term TO underlet the whole or any part of the Demised Premises (EXCEPT underletting of the whole of the Demised Premises BY an assured shorthold tenancy agreement or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of tenancy for the tenant) OTHER THAN with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents (such consent NOT TO BE UNreasonably withheld or delayed) and also to pay or cause to be paid to the Manager such reasonable fee at the same time as the granting of every consent.'

Thanks Jeffrey - I totally agree that the wording is completely ambiguous and having checked with them it does refer to option b) 'not to underlet (save for an AST). Your version makes much more sense!!

leaseholdanswers
19-08-2010, 10:41 AM
Sorry, yes you are right - it does say UNreasonably in the lease... I have looked at the previous threads and see that the consensus for a license is up to £100 and £25 - £50 for fees. I know people mention LVT cases - can you point me in the direction of any which relate to this matter?

Is it not Peveral OM on behalf of E & M ?

There are quite a few, the easiest way to respond is to say that you the landlord and Peveral OM as ARMA member managing agents will be aware of the various decisions at the LVT, and that it is not neccessary for you to list them. You are therefore offering payment of £100 and £35 plus VAT.


Thanks Jeffrey - I totally agree that the wording is completely ambiguous and having checked with them it does refer to option b) 'not to underlet (save for an AST). Your version makes much more sense!!

The style of wording is called construction; Translated this means lawyers make it open to interpretation so other lawyers make fees interpretating it.Thats what our law lecturer told us and he's written books.:eek:

jeffrey
19-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Is it not Peveral OM on behalf of E & M?
No. E&M is normally an agent for other companies in the same group. Examples are:
a. Denetower Ltd;
b. Fairhold Ltd;
c. West Lancashire Investments Ltd; and
d. Owners Provident plc- perhaps the Group's parent company?

leaseholdanswers
19-08-2010, 11:35 AM
The reason I ask is that the owners of Peveral have bought numerous investments to provide instructions for Peveral, but not I understood for them to own the investments. Even if P were managers in the lease there would be no need to appoint E & M.

Still I was taught either own the units or provide professional advice, not both, and if you must, do so at arms length if you want a shred of professional integrity. Explains a lot about residential management these days.:(

newguy
24-08-2010, 12:11 PM
Hello all, Im looking for advice on the above issue. I recently let out my flat and as per the lease wrote to both Management Company and the Lease Managers, E&M asking for their consent. Whilst Management Company wrote back giving me the consent, E&M is asking for £330 for a Global Consent 5 year licence with another £75 for every time a tenant changes. Did a bit of reading up on this forum and the Lease document - wrote back to them saying where does it require me in the Lease to pay them for consent to sub-let.

They wrote back to me saying "Please be advised that Clause 27 states that there can be no underletting without written consent of the Management Company. We would also like to draw your attention to clause 29 which stipulates that you are required to give notice upon every underletting and to pay the Landlord a fee to deal with the registration. The Landlord is entitled to charge a fee for issuing consent and to deal with the registration".

They attached a copy of the relevant pages from the Lease and have highlighted the following bits:

27.1 Not at any time during the Term sublet the whole or any part of the Demised Premises save that an underletting of the whole of the Demised Premises is permitted in the case of an AST agreement or any other form of agreement which does not create any rights of tenancy beyond the term of such agreement with the prior written consent of the Management Company or its agents (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)

29. Within one month after the date of any and every assignment transfer mortgage charge under-lease or tenancy agreement of the whole or part of the Demised Premises for any term assignment of such underlease or grant of probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing of or affecting the Demised Premises or devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give or procure to be given to the Secretary to the Management Company notice in writing.............and to pay or cause to be paid at the same time to the Management Company's Secretary such reasonable fee appropriate at the time of registration......

Having read the above and looking at the definitions clause within the lease, it clearly mentions the name of the Management Company and I have a letter from the Managing agents, Countrywide, saying they are granting me consent on behalf of the Management Company. So how can the Leasehold Managers now demand a fee on the basis of the above clauses.

Also was looking for any links to LVT cases where they determine what a reasonable fee was for getting this consent to sublet.

Im minded to write back saying the above clauses give them no rights and offer them a nominal amount of £30 to cover their charges. Please help me out with your advice and suggestions as this has really taken a lot of my time reading through stuff on the web and would love to put it to bed. Thanks everyone!

jeffrey
24-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Clause 27.1 means that no freeholder consent is needed for an AST, as long as Mgt. Co. consents.
Clause 29 means that Notice of Underletting etc. must be served on Mgt. Co. (not freeholder).
So tell freeholder (c/o E&M) to go and **** itself, albeit couching your explanation a little more politely than that. Don't even pay £30.

leaseholdanswers
24-08-2010, 20:30 PM
Clause 27.1 means that no freeholder consent is needed for an AST, as long as Mgt. Co. consents.
Clause 29 means that Notice of Underletting etc. must be served on Mgt. Co. (not freeholder).
So tell freeholder (c/o E&M) to go and **** itself, albeit couching your explanation a little more politely than that. Don't even pay £30.

Its the old mud on a barn door trick throw enough of it and some it will stick.

Write back and say RTFL read the +++++++ lease!

ronmurphy
01-09-2010, 20:17 PM
This thread has moved on since the Freehold Managers consent to let fee discussion but I thought I would post the outcome of an item at my property's recent AGM:

"Freehold Managers

"A number of owners who are letting their flats have received a communication from Freehold managers with regard consent for letting and fees due. The lease for the property states that it is the Management Company that provides consent and therefore Freehold Managers have no right to charge you for this. Do not pay this fee. The email below is confirmation and if in any doubt please contact; [FHM details]:

"............I apologise for the error in sending out the letting forms for the leaseholders to gain consent from the freeholder, our database automatically issues letters to properties with a different correspondance address. Please be advised that I have now updated our database and no further letters will be issued with regards to the letting of the properties. If you have any further queries relating to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me."

Obviously, this will not apply to all properties and you must check your lease (although I think that any property that has FHM as freeholder should be suspicious). And irrespectve of whether this was fraud or a genuine mistake, I suspect many people have paid up and may not know that they shouldn't have.

newguy
15-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Jeffrey, Thanks for your advice, wrote back to them as suggested and got a letter in the post saying they agree with my intepretation and no payment is due and they will be updating their records. So a big THANK YOU, that saved me the pricely sum of £330 and a lot of heartache! Lesson Learnt is obviously to read the lease document in detail, but I also think that the way these companies such as E&M operate, the minute they get information on a subletting( in this case, through their website where I applied for Consent - Duh!!) they automatically send out a demand letter with the standard draft. They never bother checking the lease and even when they do(as they did do in my case) they dont get it right. So all ye E&M clients out there, watch out.
Thanks again,

jeffrey
15-09-2010, 10:16 AM
Jeffrey, Thanks for your advice, wrote back to them as suggested and got a letter in the post saying they agree with my intepretation and no payment is due and they will be updating their records. So a big THANK YOU, that saved me the pricely sum of £330 and a lot of heartache! Lesson Learnt is obviously to read the lease document in detail, but I also think that the way these companies such as E&M operate, the minute they get information on a subletting( in this case, through their website where I applied for Consent - Duh!!) they automatically send out a demand letter with the standard draft. They never bother checking the lease and even when they do(as they did do in my case) they dont get it right. So all ye E&M clients out there, watch out.
Thanks again,
WELL DONE! See, perseverance does pay dividends.

Century
15-09-2010, 12:49 PM
Our lease states

"..to sublet....is permitted with the prior written consent of the Manager or its agents...(such consent not to be unreasonably witheld or delayed)"

We wrote (proof of posting obtained) to Manager 25 days ago to say that it was our intention to sublet the property from a certain date in september.
As yet - no reply.
My question - what is an unreasonable delay for consent?

TIA

jeffrey
15-09-2010, 13:05 PM
For some decided cases, see post #5 on http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=231676&highlight=unreasonable#post231676

Century
15-09-2010, 13:14 PM
For some decided cases, see post #5 on landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=231676&highlight=unreasonable#post231676[/url]

Thanks Jeffrey

Gordon999
16-09-2010, 21:10 PM
The reason I ask is that the owners of Peveral have bought numerous investments to provide instructions for Peveral, but not I understood for them to own the investments. Even if P were managers in the lease there would be no need to appoint E & M.

Still I was taught either own the units or provide professional advice, not both, and if you must, do so at arms length if you want a shred of professional integrity. Explains a lot about residential management these days.:(

Peverel OM was part of Peverel Group whihch was owned by US owner - Holiday Retirement Corporation. The FT newspaper website reported on 8 June 2008 that Consensus Business Group (CBG) had bought Peverel Group with finance supplied by Merryl Lynch.

CBG uses E&M as managing agent to make extortionate demands on leaseholders and there seems a long history of making such demands as E&M were identified in Parliament in 1998. So now E&M are overseeing Peverel in making demands for subletting fee even if they are not entitle under the lease. I think it may be engaging in fraudulent demands and everyone should make a complaint to their local MP and to Trading Standards Office ( local Council) and also to the National Fraud Authority.

Forest30
17-09-2010, 20:58 PM
I own a flat that I let out. Recently, I received a demand for 475 for retrospective consent to sublet from the new freeholder. It seems an extortionate amount. The letter says that the licence will include direct covenants to the freeholder from the sub-tenant. My lease states the following:

"That the lessee will not assign transfer underlet without the previous consent in writing of the lessor but so that such consent shall not be unreasonably witheld to any proposed subletting and so that any such consent may be conditional upon:
a] the repayment to the lessor of any costs and expenses therby incurred by the lessor
b] the execution and delivery to the lessor before any such underletting for the same of a deed to be prepared by the solicitors of the lessor at the cost of the lessee containing a convenant by the under-lessee with the lessor to perform and oberserve during the term assigned"

I have already written to the freeholder to say that it seems to be an excessive charge for a simple document. I have been informed that they believe it is an appropriate charge and I can take them to the Leasehold Valuation tribunal if I want.

The lease says nothing about how much should be charged. £475 seems to be an outrageous amount of money - do I need to pay this charge? What will they do if I do not pay? I would appreciate some advice as I begrudge paying them anything that I don't have to.

Thanks very much.

MrsTea
18-09-2010, 13:04 PM
Just to say I too have received several letters from Peverel, and now their agent E&M (heavily legal and threatening)... the information on this thread has been enlightening and I will be using it to craft my reply to them... large companies need to stop throwing their weight around in this way - I'll let you know the outcome as it feels like extortion to me - after 5 years they decide to write to me about this.... unbelievable behaviour - in 5 years the amount has risen from £64 to £210 for "their written consent"!

Gordon999
19-09-2010, 14:21 PM
Are you in a block owned by Peverel or E&M which has been demanding £370 for subletting consent as reported by other OPs earlier in LZForum ? The MP for Brent North identified a some companies including E&M as engaging in making extortionate demands for landlord consent during a session in Parliament on 10 Jun 1998. So this problem continues after being identified in Parliament some 12 years ago.

Complain to your local MP about extornionate demand for subletting consent as it is still a big problem for many leaseholders in 2010.

Forest30
19-09-2010, 18:46 PM
No, its not owned by either Peverel or E&M.

greennew
20-09-2010, 16:35 PM
Hi
Thanks to this thread I have already sent an initial letter to E&M saying that according to my lease I reading of the lease do not need to notify or obtain permission to sub-let.
They wanted £210 (Standard License) or £330 (Global License).
They have written back say I need to pay they want £75 and a copy of the tenancy agreement.
They say this is due to clause 26 see below:

26. Within one month after the date of any and every assignment transfer mortgage charge under-lease or tenancy agreement (including any immediate or derivative under-lease or tenancy agreement) of the whole or part of the Demised Premises for any term assignment of such under-lease or grant of probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing of or affecting the Demised Premises or devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give or procure to be given to the Lessor and to the Secretary to the Management Company notice in writing of such disposition or devolution or transfer of title with full particulars thereof and in the case of an under-lease if required by the Lessor and/or the Management Company a copy thereof for registration and retention by it AND ALSO at the same time to produce or cause to be produced to them the document affecting or (as the case may be) evidencing such disposition or other matter and to pay or cause to be paid at the same time to the Lessor and the Management Company's Secretary such reasonable fee appropriate at the time of registration in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the Demised Premises PROVIDED ALWAYS that in the case of a contemporaneous transfer and mortgage the fee shall only be payable on one of such matters

Any opinions would be welcome.

leaseholdanswers
20-09-2010, 18:00 PM
Happily this clause merely requires you to notify the lessor and the manangement companies secretary of the underletting.

This does not require their consent, merely notification*.

Reply giving them notice that as owner of X address that on dd/mm/yy the property was let to x for a period of y months or year to name of occupiers.

All correspondence invoices and notices, including proceedings should be sent to us at address, and contact information ( just to be nice, its not required).

A reasonable fee is between £35 and £50 plus VAT, which you tender on the basis of a recent LVT decision. I think Andydd, a member, has it memorised!

* Read elsewhere in the lease , there may be another clause requiring consent.

leaseholdanswers
20-09-2010, 18:08 PM
Peverel OM was part of Peverel Group whihch was owned by US owner - Holiday Retirement Corporation. The FT newspaper website reported on 8 June 2008 that Consensus Business Group (CBG) had bought Peverel Group with finance supplied by Merryl Lynch.

CBG uses E&M as managing agent to make extortionate demands on leaseholders and there seems a long history of making such demands as E&M were identified in Parliament in 1998. So now E&M are overseeing Peverel in making demands for subletting fee even if they are not entitle under the lease. I think it may be engaging in fraudulent demands and everyone should make a complaint to their local MP and to Trading Standards Office ( local Council) and also to the National Fraud Authority.

Yes thats right but the property holdings are entirely seperate from Peveral or OM and Stonedale. E & M write in the first person, in fact the fault of pitiful english, sloppy invoicing and no concept of the law of agency, and are taking fees for their client under their agency. Most agents who accept notices invoice or receipt directly however in fact under most leases it is unenforceable as the payment is not due to them, cannot be assigned to them, and VAT is not due on these if the lessor is not VAT registered.

They can bill these on the rent and or service charge account net of VAT and then invoice the client not you the same amount inc VAT.

Its a little technicality that stops these people going to the LVT or the County Court.

They can only bill directly if they are authorised under the lease.

Daz67
20-09-2010, 18:29 PM
Im secretary of a small management company, one of the flat owners is intending to sublet their flat. The lease requires consent to be given in writing but I`m unsure what form the letter should take. I and other owners are concerned that any tenant keeps to the original terms of the lease and doesnt become a nuisance to other flat owners. I also want to make clear the owners obligatations regarding service charge and insurance payments. Does anyone know of or have a template consent letter??

leaseholdanswers
20-09-2010, 18:41 PM
No not really but include the following.

1 Explain under the lease you the owner are responsible for payment of all charges under the lease g rent sc ins etc.

2 it is their responsibility to provide an alternative address for service of invoices notices including proceedings and correspondance, in default of which these may be validly served on the property, and to ensure that any changes are not only notified to you but acknowledged and confirmed.

3 I would insist that an emergency means of contact is also provided.

4 When giving consent it should be the MC doing so signed by you as Secretary and setting out the details of term and occupants.

5 This is a bit A level but ask to see a draft of the tenancy document, and if any conditions on the tenancy fall short of the requirements of the lease on an occupiers behaviour or any rules and regulations eg no washing out on Sundays or on the balcony, no car maintenance in the parking bay, no livestock to be driven through the halls on market day ( yes it has been included in a lease) etc, ask that these be added.

jeffrey
20-09-2010, 22:52 PM
Daz67: also make any consent by your company (L) expressly conditional on leaseholder (T) incorporating (in AST etc.) a clause obliging sub-T to to comply with all covenants in long lease (except re payment of ground rent & service charge). That way, if L has grounds for complaint against T due to sub-T's breach thereof, T will find it easier to end the sub-letting.

leaseholdanswers
21-09-2010, 09:27 AM
Daz67: also make any consent by your company (L) expressly conditional on leaseholder (T) incorporating (in AST etc.) a clause obliging sub-T to to comply with all covenants in long lease (except re payment of ground rent & service charge). That way, if L has grounds for complaint against T due to sub-T's breach thereof, T will find it easier to end the sub-letting.

As per post 3 point 5. Just a thought though sometimes the leases reduce the effect of the average tenancy doc, in some cases are even better so might it be an idea to compare them just in case and amend the tenancy doc.

its a bit clearer for the tenant as well as to which document he is supposed to follow!

jeffrey
21-09-2010, 11:19 AM
Yes. All that L needs is:
a. to impose on subT (in the Letting Agreement) a clause something like "To comply with all covenants incorporated in a long lease of the premises dated XYZ (of which the L has provided a copy to the T) except those which require payment of ground rent and service charge"; and
b. to give subT that copy before demanding execution of the Counterpart Letting Agreement.

leaseholdanswers
21-09-2010, 15:13 PM
Yes. All that L needs is:
a. to impose on subT (in the Letting Agreement) a clause something like "To comply with all covenants incorporated in a long lease of the premises dated XYZ (of which the L has provided a copy to the T) except those which require payment of ground rent and service charge"; and
b. to give subT that copy before demanding execution of the Counterpart Letting Agreement.

The regular one that crops up is noise etc where the average AST sais 11pm to 7am where many and my normal model will say 10 to 7am and later at weekends normally 8am on Sat and 9 am on Sundays and public holidays.

What I have done is copy these and send to all flat landlords seeking their inclusion so that in their interest they not are exposed to the covenants they are bound to, but which their tenant is not, due to the variance.

New schemes require the insertion of the clauses from the lease as a condition of consent and a clause that is pretty much what you have said.

Gordon999
26-09-2010, 17:32 PM
Just to say I too have received several letters from Peverel, and now their agent E&M (heavily legal and threatening)... the information on this thread has been enlightening and I will be using it to craft my reply to them... large companies need to stop throwing their weight around in this way - I'll let you know the outcome as it feels like extortion to me - after 5 years they decide to write to me about this.... unbelievable behaviour - in 5 years the amount has risen from £64 to £210 for "their written consent"!

No need to pay £219 .

See LVT judgement at £75 for "consent & registration of subletting" with Peverel as Respondent . See LVT Case No. MAN/00CG/LAC/2008/0006

Go to www.lease-advice.org and look for their case no. 4175 in LVT decision under L&T Act 1985/87.

leaseholdanswers
26-09-2010, 18:01 PM
No need to pay £219 .

See LVT judgement at £75 for "consent & registration of subletting" with Peverel as Respondent . See LVT Case No. MAN/00CG/LAC/2008/0006

Go to www.lease-advice.org and look for their case no. 4175 in LVT decision under L&T Act 1985/87.

This was for consent, the OP has quoted that this is merely a notice which should be £35 to £50, and unless the landlord is registered for VAT should not be subject to it. Unless the agent is giving consent in its own right eg party to the lease manager, it cannot invoice you. They must raise it on a service charge account invoice.

greennew
03-10-2010, 18:44 PM
Hi



26. Within one month after the date of any and every assignment transfer mortgage charge under-lease or tenancy agreement (including any immediate or derivative under-lease or tenancy agreement) of the whole or part of the Demised Premises for any term assignment of such under-lease or grant of probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing of or affecting the Demised Premises or devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give or procure to be given to the Lessor and to the Secretary to the Management Company notice in writing of such disposition or devolution or transfer of title with full particulars thereof and in the case of an under-lease if required by the Lessor and/or the Management Company a copy thereof for registration and retention by it AND ALSO at the same time to produce or cause to be produced to them the document affecting or (as the case may be) evidencing such disposition or other matter and to pay or cause to be paid at the same time to the Lessor and the Management Company's Secretary such reasonable fee appropriate at the time of registration in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the Demised Premises PROVIDED ALWAYS that in the case of a contemporaneous transfer and mortgage the fee shall only be payable on one of such matters




PROVIDED ALWAYS that in the case of a contemporaneous transfer and mortgage the fee shall only be payable on one of such matters


Dose that part of the clause mean a fee is on payable on "transfer and mortgage" and not on sub letting?

jeffrey
03-10-2010, 19:55 PM
Hi





Dose that part of the clause mean a fee is on payable on "transfer and mortgage" and not on sub letting?
No- the provision just means that only one fee (not two simultaneous fees) should be paid if two linked transactions (purchase + mortgage) are completed simultaneously. The first chunk of wording deals with Notice of Sub-letting

woodchip35
05-10-2010, 09:28 AM
If within a long lease leasee lets their flat on a AST, and there is within the lease a requirement for landlords consent (which the landlords managing agent may charge a fee for consent), and the leasee fails to notify the landlord and simply lets the property, what action can the landlord take?

jeffrey
05-10-2010, 09:48 AM
L could sue T (long-leaseholder) for breach of covenant and claim some or all of:
a. damages;
b. an Order for Specific Performance; and
c. forfeiture.

BUT are you asking about lack of consent beforehand (serious) or lack of Notice afterwards (less serious)?

woodchip35
05-10-2010, 12:42 PM
leasee was advised before they let their apartment they required landlords consent, (as detailed in lease), advised to inform managing agent, managing agent would of given 1 year consent letter and charged administration fee.

leasee ignored and let property without landlords consent.

leaseholdanswers
05-10-2010, 16:13 PM
In law these remedies are available. Similary it can be argued that if the lanldord was aware, and has say demanded or accepted rents or service charge without qualifiaction, or has acted in a way that showed his intention that the lease should continue, you can argue that they have waived the breach, thereby narrowing the remedies available to them.

In practical terms where there is no other breach arising from the tenants occupation eg noise nuisance running a business etc, the cost of taking action to remedy the breach ends up costing the landlord.

In most cases a simple letter enclosing the tenancy document and your contact details and the tenants' (for emergencies) acknowledging that there was an oversight and asking for retrospective consent should suffice, unless the clause is complicated and conditional, with a fee in the region of £50 to £100 for the consent and notice.

ram
05-10-2010, 21:34 PM
Sorry for the delay in reply but have been exceptionaly busy these last four months.

We want to be able to enforce the Lessee to ask for permission to sublet on each change of Tenant.
The main reason is for the past 6 years the same breaches of the headlease occur every 6 months, and because there is nothing else in the lease to protect the property except to deny further subletting as it is clear that the Lessee will not abide by the covenants and neither has any of his subtenants.

The breaches of the Lease are not major but a constant irritant ie parking, keeping communal areas tidy and recently the offending Lessee refusing to issue a Section 21 to subtenants due to anti social behaviour within the first six months of the AST. Also the Lessee decided not to put in the AST that the tenants had to abide by the Headlease.

The Headlease states

Not to assign underlet or part with possession of the whole of the demised premises (as distinct from a part thereof) without the consent in writing of the Lessor first being obtained such consent not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable and responsible person not being an incorporated body and to pay the Lessor his legal charges incurred in considering and dealing with any application as aforesaid and in giving any such consent as aforesaid provided always that the Lessee will not at any time during the said term assign or transfer the demised premises without the assignment or transfer (as the case may be) containing a covenant by the Assignee or Transferee directly with the Lessor to pay the rent and other monies hereby reserved and made payable and to observe and perform the Lessee's covenants and regulations and conditions herein contained and to which this demise is subject or other the regulations for the time being in force and will not grant or create or suffer to be granted any Underlease or tenancy of the demised premises or otherwise part with possession thereof without the Underlease tenancy agreement or other instruments containing an express covenant by the Underlesse sub-tenant or licensee with the Lessor to perform and observe all the covenants on the Lessee's part and conditions herein contained except (in the case of an underlease or a tenancy at a rack rent) the covenants for payment of the rent and service charge and with the condition permitting re-entry by the Lessor in case of any breach of any kind of the said covenants and conditions except as aforesaid

leaseholdanswers
05-10-2010, 22:19 PM
I would retain solcitors and write expressing concerns and requiring that consent be sought in advance each time and setting out what they feel is a tenant who is "respectable and responsible person" and insisting on sight of the references etc,and providing a set of paragraphs or a deed for the subtenants to sign to comply with terms of the lease.

At the first hint of non compliance you can then ask the sols to sent a letter before action and refer to the LVT as a breach. This will head off any claims that you are unreasonably witholding consent.
I would send this to all owners so that it is standard procedure, and negotitate a simple fee for the lawyers to deal with this. They should also review the lease to see if some of the costs of setting it up can be on the service charge.

I would also work on house rules for common areas and parking, consistent with the lease, to be give to new occupiers, even perhaps introducing parking controls such as lockable posts in each space etc, limited fobs for access etc.

On schemes with a high buy to let turnover, the Rules are issued on arrival and the rules put up on (tasteful) signs on each floor lift and entrance.

sgclacy
06-10-2010, 01:27 AM
It may not be as difficult as it might seem

Assuming you are the freeholder you can make an application under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The application is made to the LVT by way of a letter and no fee is payable. The letter has a simple structure to it see below.

What the effect will be is that the LVT will write to the lessee and yourselves with a series of directions and you will also have to confirm to the LVT that you have advised the mortgagee of the flat of your proposed actions. When the lender has been served with a copy of the directions this will alarm the lender who will put pressure on their borrower.

If there is no mortgagee then the lessee is at some risk and it would be most unwise for him to ignore the directions


An example of a recent claim I had to make

In The Matter Of:
Flat X, XXXXXX, XXXXXXX

__________________________________________________ _____


Applicant:

The applicant is Mr XXXXXXX and is the freehold owner to YYYYYYYY


Respondent

The respondent is XXXXXXXX, the lessee of Flat 1,XXXXXXXXX. Her contact details are VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Tel XXXXXX


Address of premises to which this application relates:

Flat 1, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



A statement giving particulars of the alleged breach of covenant or condition;

Please refer to the letter from Ms Anybody the lessee of Flat X and my letter to the respondent

The respondent has sub let her property to an agency that in turn sub lets the property on a series of short term lets to tenants who have consistently caused behavioural problems at the property by making a noise and damaging the property. This I believe is a breach of Clause YYY and also a breach of an implied covenant not to cause a nuisance. I believe that the breach can only be remedied if the respondent terminates the tenancy agreement she has with the agency.

As a result of the respondents subletting to a Housing Association or local authority the cost of the buildings Insurance would rise and this is a breach of Clause XXX of the lease. If the tenancy agreement is terminated immediately, the cost resulting from of the breach in respect of the insurance would be probably no more than £75.00. The broker indicated over the telephone that the insurers may not raise a demand if the period was very short.

The breach in respect of the failing to serve notice of assignment has been partially remedied as I have been told of the identity of the agency the respondent has sub-let the premises to. However I require under the lease, formal notice and a copy of the tenancy agreement and a fee of £40.00



A copy of the lease;

Copy enclosed



A statement of truth

Please see the end of the statement



Whether there is a need for urgency in dealing with the case and if so why

Yes, due to the nature of the problem the matter is urgent. However if the tenancy agreement is terminated and the sub letting ceases I would drop the whole case in the interest of saving the tribunal time and costs as the other breaches are of a minor nature and I do not wish to pursue forfeiture solely on those grounds. The respondent has up to now has been a reasonable person to deal with.



Whether the application can be dealt with on consideration of documents alone and without a hearing

I believe the matter can be dealt with on consideration of the documents alone



Whether an inspection of the property is required

I believe the matter does not require an inspection of the property



Dates in the next three months when the applicant or any expert witness will not be available.

I am available at all times except for a few days either side of XX of YYYYY 2010

I sincerely believe the facts recorded above are accurate and give a true account of the events surrounding the breach of covenant



………………………………………… � �……. Applicant



………………………………………… � �………

leaseholdanswers
06-10-2010, 08:37 AM
It is fairly simple however it is unlikely that breach would be determined without a hearing due to the nature of the claim.

llquestions
06-10-2010, 10:08 AM
Hi,

I'm new to this site so apologies if I'm repeating previous questions. Any advice will be much appreciated.

I'm looking to buy a property to let. I've found a potential property which is a flat in a Victorian terrace house. The flat is being sold with a share of the freehold and the freehold is shared between the owners of the 3 flats in the converted house. At the moment all the freeholders live in their flats.

Are there any potential problems I need to watch out for if I now wish to let the flat I'm thinking of buying? Could the other freeholders object and stop me from letting the flat to tenants? I'm worried as they will need to authorise the transfer of freehold to me if I buy the flat.

Thanks in advance
James

jeffrey
06-10-2010, 10:29 AM
What does your lease say? Read the covenants that bind you as leaseholder!

ram
06-10-2010, 11:54 AM
Thank you for recent replies ( October 2010 )

comments on answers received :-

"however it is unlikely that breach would be determined without a hearing due to the nature of the claim.
you can make an application under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The application is made to the LVT
advised the mortgagee of the flat of your proposed actions"

Because the offending flat needs 2 to afford the rent, it often happens that as sub-tenants change - one comes in 3 months after the other, ( or one oversays by 3 months,) then we have a situation, where every 3 months, someone new comes in, and it starts all over again, so we would have to - every 3 months, apply to the LVT and mortgage company - this is just not financially viable , nor is the time available for this.

( permision to sublet ) "It is only irrevocable if it is expressed to be irrevocable."
I wish that this were true -- Any comments ? ( copy lease at post 05-10-2010 10:34 PM )

"at the first hint of non compliance you can then ask the sols to send a letter ( negotitate a simple fee for the lawyers - setting it up can be on the service charge.)"
Again, every 3 to 6 months to instruct solicitors is again imposible due to expense which the directors will not sanction, nor time available to do so.

"also work on house rules for common areas and parking, consistent with the lease".
We have, but every new sub-tenant breaks the rules, and has to be told - yet again every 3 to 6 months.

"lockable posts in each space etc, limited fobs for access etc."
The Directors will not sanction the expense, and visitors just park anywhere they can, blocking certain garages. ( at every change of tenant )

"Rules are issued on arrival and the rules put up on (tasteful) signs on each floor lift and entrance"
owner often does not stipulate ( has once though ) that the head lease must be observed, the sub-tenants ignor rules, as it's not in their A.S.T. to observe the headlease. ( which will be the rules on the wall ) but we dont want that on the walls as there are owner ocupiers, and it makes the block ( house ) look unwelcoming and troublesome for those that are thinking of selling, and would put off purchasers.

HENCE the option for us to say - Due to the never ending, minor, but constant and sometimes upsetting breaches, /flat number X can no longer be sub-let, as it is quite clear that for years, sub-tenants are unable to observe certain items in the headlease. -- That is our argument to recind subletting.

long reply, but it's a constant battle with every new sub-tenant.

thanks. Comments welcome ( if i have not milked this to extinction )

sgclacy
06-10-2010, 12:45 PM
Thank you for recent replies ( October 2010 )

comments on answers received :-

"however it is unlikely that breach would be determined without a hearing due to the nature of the claim.
you can make an application under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The application is made to the LVT
advised the mortgagee of the flat of your proposed actions"

Because the offending flat needs 2 to afford the rent, it often happens that as sub-tenants change - one comes in 3 months after the other, ( or one oversays by 3 months,) then we have a situation, where every 3 months, someone new comes in, and it starts all over again, so we would have to - every 3 months, apply to the LVT and mortgage company - this is just not financially viable , nor is the time available for this.



I wonder if you have missed my point. The application will be against the owner of the flat you do not have to name the sub tenants.

Once you get a determination of a breach then you really will be in a very strong position indeed as you can then issue a Section 146 Notice. The lessee will then have to seek relief from forfeiture and will be put to a great deal of expense and time. Which will hopefully make him aware of the need to put in quality tenants to avoid having to go through the procedure again He will be under a lot of presssure from his mortgagees. In granting relief from forfeitre you should be able to recover all of your costs, and as you should be able to deal with this yourself it should not be a great deal

ram
06-10-2010, 12:56 PM
freehold is shared between the owners of the 3 flats . Could the other freeholders object and stop me from letting the flat to tenants? I'm worried as they will need to authorise the transfer of freehold to me if I buy the flat.


i am against buy to let, ( if you see my last post, you will understsand )

Our lease states that we have to agree to someone buying a flat, by assigning the lease to the new owner, and can block it if we all agree ( not many leases have that provision ).
If you are not a criminal or such like, when you buy the flat you should automaticaly have the freehold part given to you, but you have to read the lease.

You may also have to ask permission to sub-let, which "cannot reasonably be refused", but refused it can be !

If it was possible in the lease where you are thinking of buying, I for one would object, if your sole intention was to have constant changes of tenants every 6 months. not a nice possition to be in, when tenants often dont care about the state of the common parts or who refuse their turn to put out the bins. etc etc.

But read the lease before agreeing to buy....... YOU read it, don't leave it to the solicitor, as here, WE have to tell the solicitors that there are no pets ( they always miss that ) and have twice sold a flat without getting authorisation to assign the lease to new owner, thereby a flat is bought, but they cant move in as there is no authorisation to to do so from the persons responsible for giving that authorisation via asigning the new lease.

Happy buy to let...........

jeffrey
06-10-2010, 13:43 PM
That's right, of course, but I do wish that solicitors took the trouble to explain to clients PRECISELY what they're buying and what rules apply!

woodchip35
06-10-2010, 15:17 PM
In law these remedies are available. Similary it can be argued that if the lanldord was aware, and has say demanded or accepted rents or service charge without qualifiaction, or has acted in a way that showed his intention that the lease should continue, you can argue that they have waived the breach, thereby narrowing the remedies available to them.

In practical terms where there is no other breach arising from the tenants occupation eg noise nuisance running a business etc, the cost of taking action to remedy the breach ends up costing the landlord.

In most cases a simple letter enclosing the tenancy document and your contact details and the tenants' (for emergencies) acknowledging that there was an oversight and asking for retrospective consent should suffice, unless the clause is complicated and conditional, with a fee in the region of £50 to £100 for the consent and notice.

noted. Where LL's consent is required to let, is it reasonable for the landlord to be given or ask for a copy of the AST?

jeffrey
06-10-2010, 15:30 PM
noted. Where LL's consent is required to let, is it reasonable for the landlord to be given or ask for a copy of the AST?
It seems reasonable. L will usually at least want to see the presence of a clause binding subT to comply with long-lease's restrictive covenants.

ram
06-10-2010, 15:53 PM
The


I wonder if you have missed my point. application will be against the owner of the flat .

RAM. no, I have not missed your point. I know it's the owner that breaches the lease

The remainder of the reply, is not directed at you ( sgclacy ) or to undermine your valued usefull advice, but answered to show the problems when other Directors are scared to take action, we have no spare cash, authorisation will not be granted for fear of costs against us, and Directors being timid, not living on the premises and thinking it will all go away for the 5th year of mentioning the problems again.

As a leaseholder, I can take the action, but that will alienate me from the timid others ( Oh dear, we cant take his flat off him, that's not right, mabe if you talk to him -- etc etc. Then I am the one causing the problems !)


Once you get a determination of a breach then you really will be in a very strong position indeed as you can then issue a Section 146 Notice.

RAM. As stated previously here and on other posts.
A judge will be VERY reluctant to forfeit a flat because someone parked their car in the wrong place, ( making it imposible for someone to leave their home ) or they refuse to pick up rubbish, keep the common arears tidy ( it's all in the lease ).
A judge will not forfeit on those grounds alone, even if it IS constant, and no end in sight. And the owner knows this and sits there in smug mode knowing he is sitting pretty.

RAM. The Directors will not action issuing a section 146 if the opinion is only "you should be able to recover all of your costs" as against, you will cover your costs"



put in quality tenants to avoid having to go through the procedure again He will be under a lot of presssure from his mortgagees. In granting relief from forfeitre you should be able to recover all of your costs, and as you should be able to deal with this yourself it should not be a great deal

RAM. quality tenants. He says that's what he does get, and on the face of it they always look fine, but sub-tenants don't observe certain items in the headlease - ( reoccurring breeches.)

Hence the conclsion that we have to stop the sub-letting of a flat, as it is clear that breaches of the headlease are constant, and the same breaches occurr every 3 and 6 months, without fail, and will continue.

The main concern is, see my post above,
Sublet refused.
one reply states "You cannot refuse based on the behaviour of earlier tenants. "
Therefore we have to issue a 146 every time, and directors wont allow this for FEAR of costs against us.
Another post states "It is only irrevocable if it is expressed to be irrevocable".

So have 2 conflicting opinions. so are both true ?

Yes, thanks for all the advice, which is true and can be done only if one breach of the lease occurs, but this is constant, at every change of tenant. (You cannot refuse based on the behaviour of earlier tenants.)

Thanks.

jeffrey
06-10-2010, 16:01 PM
No. If L issues consent and T relies on its terms, L is bound by it and cannot resile. The argument will turn on exactly what is permitted by the consent.

leaseholdanswers
06-10-2010, 16:16 PM
While sglacy is not wrong is taking a firm approach you are right in that your are unliley to recover all your costs, limited in recharging them the service charge, putting you out of pocket.

My earlier post anticipated that in suggesting that making it clear to all owners there is a new policy requiring the lease to be followed, everyone gets the rules in advance, and that you insist on seeing references that they meet the defintion in the lease responsible person etc.

If you do have to go to the lvt for a breach you are on much firmer ground and less at risk from losing and being out of pocket.

leaseholdanswers
06-10-2010, 16:58 PM
That's right, of course, but I do wish that solicitors took the trouble to explain to clients PRECISELY what they're buying and what rules apply!

Jeffrey I am sure you and those like you do, however so many buyers dont read the report and advice.

(Perhaps if they were stapled inside an Ikea catalog they might be, cos lifestyle is whats its all about right.....how cynical of me.)

leaseholdanswers
06-10-2010, 17:00 PM
noted. Where LL's consent is required to let, is it reasonable for the landlord to be given or ask for a copy of the AST?

Yes as per post I called it tenancy document ( in case it was not an AST)

Century
07-10-2010, 07:42 AM
Our lease states

"Within one month after the date of any and every assignment...or other matter disposing of and affecting the Demised Premises....to give or procur to be given to the Lessor and the Manager notice in writing of such disposition....and if required by the Lessor or Manager a copy of the instrument for registration and retention...and also at the same time to pay or cause to be paid.....such reasonable fees appropriate at the time of registration in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the Demised Premises...."

What should this Notice include?

llquestions
07-10-2010, 10:20 AM
Hi,

Thanks for the responses. I've read the lease and there is a clause stating that the property be only used as a private residential flat and to be occupied only by the Tenant or the Tenant's own family. I assume the Tenant in this case is the owner of the lease which in this case is also one of the owners of the shared freehold. So the lease on the flat will need changing. I guess this will require the consent of all the freeholders?

Thanks
James

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 10:40 AM
Yes. In the context of a long lease. "tenant"/"lessee"/"leaseholder" usually mean the same. Your lease's covenant absolutely prohibits sub-letting.
You therefore need L's consent (not unanimous but at least a bare majority ).
NOTE that L is fully able to withhold it- s.19 of LTA 1927 does [u]not apply to an absolute prohibition.

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 10:49 AM
Basic details:
1. Date of lease.
2. Name of original lessor.
3. Name of original lessor.
4. Term length.
5. Term commencement date.
6. Ground rent amount p.a.
7. Property address.
8. Date of present disposal.
9. Name of party now disposing (e.g. vendor, mortgagor, etc.)
10. Name of party to whom party9 is now disposing (e.g. purchaser, mortgagee, etc.)

leaseholdanswers
07-10-2010, 11:47 AM
3: name of original Lessee just in case it confused you

Century
07-10-2010, 12:32 PM
Thanks Jeffrey.

I am sub-letting, and giving notice, so should I include all of the those?

TIA

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 12:53 PM
3: name of original Lessee just in case it confused you
Oops- sorry; yes, I erred in cut/paste!

jeffrey
07-10-2010, 12:53 PM
Thanks Jeffrey.

I am sub-letting, and giving notice, so should I include all of the those?

TIA
Yes, if long lease requires Notice of Underletting. Otherwise, no.

jenna
15-10-2010, 14:46 PM
Oh to have the brain to understand the legal jargon!

My letter from E&M states: We would like to draw your attention to clause 33 (b) (ii) “Not to assign transfer or underlet the entirety of the premises unless contemporaneously with such assignment transfer or underlease the assignee transferee or underlessee executes a deed of covenant with the lessor and the company so that he and his successors in title will at all times observe and perform the obligations on the part of the lessee contained in this schedule (whether running with the lease or of a purely personal or collateral nature)to the same extent as if the assignee transferee or underlessee were the original lessee party hereto such deed of covenant to be in the form set out in the seventh schedule hereto”.

Can someone advise what this means please! Do I have to pay the extortionate fees being asked for?

leaseholdanswers
16-10-2010, 08:02 AM
This clause is really there for a sale of the flat or if you were to create a long lease of the flat and sell that.

If a renter entered into the deed they would take on all your repsonsibilities to the freeholder.They should not be responsible for ground rent and service charge, and not for repairing your internal plumbing etc( which is statute barred anyway in short terms, meaning even if a tenant agreed, the court would override it) but should abide by covenants on noise nuisance parking pets etc.

So:

1: Does the lease make any reference to subletting or assignment other than this? If so what?

2: If not then respond to E & M and repeat para 2 and ask them to provide a deed that is relevant to shorter lettings.

As to fees a reasonable notice fee is £25 to £25 and deed no more than £100.

jenna
16-10-2010, 20:57 PM
Thank you for your help! I have looked throught the lease but there is no other reference - and this was the clause the company quoted in their letter asking for the fees. So does it appear they have no basis for asking for a fee from me to sublet?

leaseholdanswers
17-10-2010, 10:02 AM
Thank you for your help! I have looked throught the lease but there is no other reference - and this was the clause the company quoted in their letter asking for the fees. So does it appear they have no basis for asking for a fee from me to sublet?

Yes they do, the idea being that the tenancy has similar obligations to the lease. As the lessor and the company I assume the freeholder and the management company are involved in signing the deed, then they are entitled to a reasonable fee reflecting their time etc.

I would reply and say while you understand that the tenancy has to have similar obligations to the lease, the deed refered to obligates the renter to pay ground rent service charge and internal repairs, and therefore only suitable for a sale of the flat.

If they care to amend the deed relevant to the letting then you will pay the reasonable charge of £117.50.

Its a sloppy lease no tenant would sign this, making flats unlettable! In practice where I come across these I require leaseholders to simply add to the tenancy the relevant clauses, or add to these deeds wordings such as the tenant will observe those covenants save as to and list the sections refering to ground rent service charges repairs etc. Once you have done it its there for all future lettings!

jenna
17-10-2010, 22:09 PM
Thank you! Will give it a try and see what happens.........tho am tempted to wait and see if they actually pursue the matter...........tho having read other posts on the website they are out for all they can get!

leaseholdanswers
18-10-2010, 11:06 AM
Thank you! Will give it a try and see what happens.........tho am tempted to wait and see if they actually pursue the matter...........tho having read other posts on the website they are out for all they can get!

I would read the lease and ensure that any covenant except rent service charge and internal repairs ( except minor ones tap washers) etc are included in the tenancy document.

westjezza
21-10-2010, 00:09 AM
re Peverel (freeholder) e&m (administrator)

I have recently paid two fees; (a) for written permission to sublet (b) registration of existing tenancy agreement. These fees were demanded retrospectively by the administrator with regard to the requirement as stated in my lease.

My existing tenancy agreement is nearing its end date. I have again been contacted by the administrator who is now requesting a "renewal fee" based on the assumption that the tenancy is to be renewed for 12 months, or a further registration fee on the same assumption, to be forwarded no later than "21 days" from the instigation of any new tenancy agreement.

I am aware of no obligation either in law, or arising in my lease which would require me to instigate a tenancy agreement with my existing tenant for a fixed term. Neither am I aware of any obligation which would preclude the present tenancy agreement from reverting to periodic status. My understanding of 'periodic' to mean of no fixed term and notice which can be given at any time by either party, landlord or tenant.

My lease states: "within 1 month after the date of any/every assignment, transfer, of mortgage, underlease, or tenancy agreement - including any immediate or derivative underlease or tenancy agreement, to give written notice within and provide certified
copy of documentation and to pay such reasonable fee"

Other than confirming the ongoing status as periodic and referring to the existing tenancy which is to continue, I am not aware of what there is to "register" and on what basis any demand for the same registration fee (£75) could be demanded - eg
that this is "reasonable". On the contrary it would seem : punitive.

Especially as a variable administration fee which is not calculated under a specified formula in a lease is subject to the legal requirement of "reasonableness".

Help ?!

deer
02-12-2010, 17:30 PM
I 'am the freeholder
Tenant/Lessee owes ground rent and service charge.(yes,they have both been demanded in the correct format and sent with a summary of rights.)
It is a buy to let property,
Empty at present,
If they find a tenant to rent the property, can I withhold consent to sublet until the outstanding debts have been paid?
Lease says...
Not to sublet the whole premises for periods of less than six months and not in any event without the Lessor's prior written consent such consent not to be unreasonably withheld

andydd
02-12-2010, 18:04 PM
I 'am the freeholder
Tenant/Lessee owes ground rent and service charge.(yes,they have both been demanded in the correct format and sent with a summary of rights.)
It is a buy to let property,
Empty at present,
If they find a tenant to rent the property, can I withhold consent to sublet until the outstanding debts have been paid?
Lease says...
Not to sublet the whole premises for periods of less than six months and not in any event without the Lessor's prior written consent such consent not to be unreasonably withheld

I would of thought so, it is often mentioned that lease breaches are thought to have been accepted if the freeholder has been accepting ground rent payments so the opposite should be true.

Andy

leaseholdanswers
02-12-2010, 18:39 PM
I 'am the freeholder
Tenant/Lessee owes ground rent and service charge.(yes,they have both been demanded in the correct format and sent with a summary of rights.)
It is a buy to let property,
Empty at present,
If they find a tenant to rent the property, can I withhold consent to sublet until the outstanding debts have been paid?
Lease says...
Not to sublet the whole premises for periods of less than six months and not in any event without the Lessor's prior written consent such consent not to be unreasonably withheld

Actually no, not as such.

What you can do is:

a: write "without prejudice" that you are not prepared to consent to the underletting until GR and SC are paid in full.
b: If no response is received within two or three days, or if you wish to plow on, write and say that you are in breach and that as the amounts are outstanding, unless they are paid in seven days you will commence forfeiture proceedings. Any proposed subletting could not therefore be considered, and if the letting were to proceed, then that too would be a breach. In anticpiation of the foreiture proceedings you would be notifying the mortgagee of the flat of the breaches of non payment and unauthorised subletting. Urge them to seek legal advice. Head the letter LETTER BEFORE ACTION.

All that hopefully brings them to the table and to agree a settlement plan.

Leave an open copy in the flat. I am sure the owners will pick it up before any prospective tenant sees it.....

deer
02-12-2010, 18:59 PM
Thank you,
The payment was due on 1/12/2010,not very late but I'am having problems with this tenant.(it is the one who has had 2 sales fall thru)
Should I leave it a while longer?

leaseholdanswers
02-12-2010, 19:02 PM
Thank you,
The payment was due on 1/12/2010,not very late but I'am having problems with this tenant. (it is the one who has had 2 sales fall thru)
Should I leave it a while longer?

The lease will say if unpaid after x days. In that case option a is the best one for now. If a consent ( or anything) is requested standard option is "always check if they have paid". Perhaps hint that you will waive the notice and consent fee if you get it paid soon......

deer
02-12-2010, 20:52 PM
Ok thank you.
She has not approached me since our not very friendly chat! I'm just trying to 2nd guess what she is going to do next! No mortgage on the property.(bummer)
The Lease says,If rent properly payable whether demanded or not or any other monetary payment under this lease is not paid within twenty-one days of becoming due then to pay interest to accrue from day to day commencing on the date when the payment became due until payment is made.
Does this mean i have to wait until 22nd Dec to write a reminder? When i write a reminder can i charge her £25 for the letter,and does the letter need to be accompanied by a summary of rights?

andydd
02-12-2010, 20:59 PM
Ok thank you.
She has not approached me since our not very friendly chat! I'm just trying to 2nd guess what she is going to do next! No mortgage on the property.(bummer)
The Lease says,If rent properly payable whether demanded or not or any other monetary payment under this lease is not paid within twenty-one days of becoming due then to pay interest to accrue from day to day commencing on the date when the payment became due until payment is made.
Does this mean i have to wait until 22nd Dec to write a reminder? When i write a reminder can i charge her £25 for the letter,and does the letter need to be accompanied by a summary of rights?

Demands for ground rent don't need the summary of rights. When was the service charge due ?

Asd the rent was only due yesterday, I would of thought it would be reasonable to wait a month or a couple of weeks before doing anything, as suggested above, if you send a Notice Before action that would normally stipulate some kind of time frame.

Andy

leaseholdanswers
03-12-2010, 09:50 AM
Ok thank you.
She has not approached me since our not very friendly chat! I'm just trying to 2nd guess what she is going to do next! No mortgage on the property.(bummer)
The Lease says,If rent properly payable whether demanded or not or any other monetary payment under this lease is not paid within twenty-one days of becoming due then to pay interest to accrue from day to day commencing on the date when the payment became due until payment is made.
Does this mean i have to wait until 22nd Dec to write a reminder? When i write a reminder can i charge her £25 for the letter,and does the letter need to be accompanied by a summary of rights?

1 When to remind. As the due date has past, a 7 day reminder mentioning interest can be sent now, and a final demand 10 days prior to the 21st.

2: Summary of rights. If you charge a fee for the letter chasing for whatever charge is an admin charge and therefore a summary rights should be sent. That said admin charges are only due if the lease allows, and yours I am afraid to say does not.
Interest is the only penalty you have for late payment,a s a contratual penalty, does not require a summary of roghts.

3. Summary of rights Service Charge- any reminder should be sent with a summary. This is for practical reasons; the originla may not have ben received, and therefore any invoice reminder should show the rights.

Ideally use the same invoice, re date it with a red flash or corner "final demand" etc.

deer
03-12-2010, 10:10 AM
Ok thank you I will draft a letter this morning.
If I employed an agent could they then charge her for a 7 day reminder,and then a final demand?

jeffrey
03-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Ok thank you I will draft a letter this morning.
If I employed an agent could they then charge her for a 7 day reminder,and then a final demand?
No, not yet. If it fell due on 1 Dec. and there's a 21-day grace period, T cannot be treated as in breach until after 22 Dec.

deer
03-12-2010, 11:50 AM
Thank you,I will send her a reminder today.

deer
03-12-2010, 12:32 PM
Sorry I would just like to check,we sold this lady the flat,(she bought it as a buy to let)the lease has her address where she lives permantly,and the address of the demised flat.She has never written and advised me of her permanent address,but i have always sent correspondence to her permanent address.Would i be within in my rights from now on ,to start sending letters and notices to the demised flat?

jeffrey
03-12-2010, 12:39 PM
Just contact her at her last known address, whichever it is. If she does not want that, the onus i hers to notify you of where else.

leaseholdanswers
03-12-2010, 12:42 PM
Ok thank you I will draft a letter this morning.
If I employed an agent could they then charge her for a 7 day reminder,and then a final demand?

The due date was 1-12 and a reminder is in order.

No, as the agent or a landlord is applying an admin charge to the flat, which your lease does not allow. They might include charges for chasing in their fees, but that is met by everybody, and still has to be reasonable. In practice many agents do apply a reminder letter fee
and let individuals challenge it under the lease or at LVT, on the basis it earns more as a: many pay it, and b: it hassles those who try to pay at the past minute, imprives paymentrates, and therefore reduces overall costs on arrears chasing. That outweights the odd "loss". In your case with a small block and already less than cordial relationship, a fee might do more harm than good.

As to the reminder as I say simply reprint the demand with todays date and a red corner or lettering URGENT REMINDER etc

greennew
04-12-2010, 12:15 PM
Hi All,
I’m still having problems e&m, as suggested on this forum I offered a payment of £35 pounds for notice of underletting.
The Response I received:
Please be advised that our client’s fee for formal registration of tenants is £75.00, therefore please find enclosed the cheque for the sum of £35.00 returned as this is the not the correct fee.
I then noticed that I paid a landlord notice fee of £75.00 when I purchased the flat, I wrote to e&m again pointing out that the landlord notice fee had already been paid.
The response I received:
Please be advised
That the fee stated in the receipt from your solicitors is in regards to the notice of transfer and is a separate matter.
Please note in order to formally register your tenants we require the payment of the £75.00 fee required.

So do I just pay or do any one have any other ideas?

leaseholdanswers
04-12-2010, 18:14 PM
Hi All,
I’m still having problems e&m, as suggested on this forum I offered a payment of £35 pounds for notice of underletting.
The Response I received:
Please be advised that our client’s fee for formal registration of tenants is £75.00, therefore please find enclosed the cheque for the sum of £35.00 returned as this is the not the correct fee.
I then noticed that I paid a landlord notice fee of £75.00 when I purchased the flat, I wrote to e&m again pointing out that the landlord notice fee had already been paid.
The response I received:
Please be advised
That the fee stated in the receipt from your solicitors is in regards to the notice of transfer and is a separate matter.
Please note in order to formally register your tenants we require the payment of the £75.00 fee required.

So do I just pay or do any one have any other ideas?

Either make an appliation to the LVT for a written decision, or refuse to pay more than £35 and invite them to challenge it at LVT. There is a risk that they will pile on more costs for admin fees and chasing oustanding payments.

Tell them that if they persist,remind them that allowing the tenancy to become a periodic tenancy with the same tenants is not "an assignment, transfer, of mortgage, underlease, or tenancy agreement - including any immediate or derivative underlease or tenancy agreement". £35 was a gesture and that you are now inclined to pay nothing.

Ask them that you wish this to be reviewed under the formal complaints procedure which as ARMA members they must do. The argument is that they, not their client have raised an administration charge under the lease. That lease does not give them as agents the ability to raise their corporate invoice to you as a leaseholder. Nor does it allow them to raise one behalf of their client. Even if your landlord had raised an invoice themselves, the lease terms are for a fee which is to be paid when -quote an assignment etc- and that as you have simply allowed the tenancy to become a periodic one, that the obligation to pay a fee( which in turn must be reasonable) does not arise.

deer
05-12-2010, 15:30 PM
Hi,
I sent a reminder,and I also emailed her husband (who is working in Australia)just incase he didn't know what was going on this end.He has been kept informed by his wife.The husband emailed back saying that he was seeking legal advice.
The ground rent is £200 and the service charge is £531.90,both were due on 1/12/2010
(they have also dropped the asking price.) I think they are selling rather than renting it out again.
If they havn't paid up by christmas what are my options?

leaseholdanswers
05-12-2010, 18:59 PM
Hi,
I sent a reminder,and I also emailed her husband (who is working in Australia)just incase he didn't know what was going on this end.He has been kept informed by his wife.The husband emailed back saying that he was seeking legal advice.
The ground rent is £200 and the service charge is £531.90,both were due on 1/12/2010
(they have also dropped the asking price.) I think they are selling rather than renting it out again.
If they havn't paid up by christmas what are my options?

Well as soon as the due date falls you can isue a claim in the county court for both charges for a money judgement, issue forfeiture proceedings for the ground rent alone, and forfeiture proccedings for rent and service charge although the service charge will be sent to the LVT unless they have or do agree or admit that they have no dispute over the service charges.

If they underlet without consent this breach can be added to the LVT application for forfeiture. I would say that unless the proposed letting is to entirely undesirable types or in clear breach of a lease eg student sharers when the lease insists on a single family, it is almost certain that any delay or resistance to consent willl be seen as unreasonable. The landlord only loses in these cases; time money and credibility.

If they are taking advice then all you can do is at this stage wait until they respond, many say they will and never do.
In the meantime proceed with debt recovery if unpaid.

http://www.ringley.co.uk/estates/credit/index.shtml Might be of interest

Brixtonia
13-12-2010, 13:36 PM
I am the freeholder. I have been asked by a leaseholder for my consent to let which I am happy to give.

Are there any particular considerations/information I need to include in the consent?

Anything to watch out for?

jeffrey
13-12-2010, 13:41 PM
I am the freeholder. I have been asked by a leaseholder for my consent to let which I am happy to give.

Are there any particular considerations/information I need to include in the consent?

Anything to watch out for?
Please post here the full sub-clause that restricts T's power to sublet.

Brixtonia
16-12-2010, 15:06 PM
Please post here the full sub-clause that restricts T's power to sublet.

20. upon every underletting of the demised premises and upon every assignment transfer or charge thereof and upon the grant of probate letters of administration affecting the term and upon the devolution of the term under any assent or other instrument or otherwise howsoever or by any Order of the Court within one month thereafter to give to the Landlord and the Management Company or to their respective solicitors for the time being notice in writing of such underletting assignment transfer charge grant assent or Order with full particulars thereof and to produce to the L and the MCo or their respective solicitors every such document as aforesaid and to pay to the landlord a reasonable fee for the registration of the said notice (not being less than £40) plus VAT... and to deliver to the MCo each deed of covenant referred to in pgph 8.2c of the schedule.

jeffrey
16-12-2010, 15:39 PM
No. That merely requires a post-transaction Notice/fee; I meant the pre-transaction restriction clause.

Brixtonia
16-12-2010, 16:39 PM
15. Not to assign transfer underlet or part with possession of any part of the demised Premises (as distinct from whole) in any way whatsoever.

16. Not to underlet...the whole or any part of the DP for a Term of less than 3 months.

17. Not to underlet or permit to be underlet (save in the case of a sub-letting at a rack rent without a payment of a premium for a period not exceeding five years by way of an AST or company let or other tenancy not affording to the tenant any security of tenure)...

18. Not to underlet or permit to be underlet (save in the case of a sub-letting at a rack rent without a payment of a premium for a period not exceeding five years by way of an AST or company let or other tenancy not affording to the tenant any security of tenure)...

19. (Exception as above).

20. (quoted in previous post)

Can't see anything else.

jeffrey
16-12-2010, 18:00 PM
15. Not to assign transfer underlet or part with possession of any part of the demised Premises (as distinct from whole) in any way whatsoever.

16. Not to underlet...the whole or any part of the DP for a Term of less than 3 months.

17. Not to underlet or permit to be underlet (save in the case of a sub-letting at a rack rent without a payment of a premium for a period not exceeding five years by way of an AST or company let or other tenancy not affording to the tenant any security of tenure)...

18. Not to underlet or permit to be underlet (save in the case of a sub-letting at a rack rent without a payment of a premium for a period not exceeding five years by way of an AST or company let or other tenancy not affording to the tenant any security of tenure)...

19. (Exception as above).

20. (quoted in previous post).
Hmm- are 17 and 18 supposed to be identical? Why?
They seem to allow a subletting of the whole, if at full rent for a term of five years or less- so T needs no consent from L for subletting.

Brixtonia
16-12-2010, 18:58 PM
Thanks Jeffrey,

No - they are not identical but the clauses are quite lengthy, I type slowly and since they begin by excluding ASTs, etc.. I presume not relevant to the enquiry.

So, no consent but a requirement to register each tenancy within a month of commencement and pay a registration fee, presumably for each new ast?

I reality, what difference does it make to me whether they register it or not? Do I really need to know?

jeffrey
17-12-2010, 11:03 AM
No - they are not identical but the clauses are quite lengthy, I type slowly and since they begin by excluding ASTs, etc.. I presume not relevant to the enquiry.
Please spot/post [anag!] the differences (which might be significant) between them.


So, no consent but a requirement to register each tenancy within a month of commencement and pay a registration fee, presumably for each new ast?
Yes.


I reality, what difference does it make to me whether they register it or not? Do I really need to know?
Yes- for otherwise you'll be in breach of covenant; L can then make life v. expensive for you. Why risk it?

leaseholdanswers
17-12-2010, 11:50 AM
I reality, what difference does it make to me whether they register it or not? Do I really need to know?

Yes very much you need to know. You then know who is in occupation for any breaches that occur, where to send invoices and other comms etc.

Send them a form along the lines of

Leaseholder: Your new address and contact numbers
Emergency contact if you are away

Tenant: Name(s) And contact numbers for emergencies

Date of end of tenancy

Send them a copy of any house rules eg refuse collection, noise times, post, pets, or jsut a copy of these rules from the lease etc.

Brixtonia
17-12-2010, 12:02 PM
Thanks all for your advice, as always.

Gordon999
19-12-2010, 16:15 PM
Ask for a letter signed by a director of the freehold company authorisng E&M to demand payment of 75 pds which is not a provision under the lease.

jeffrey
20-12-2010, 15:53 PM
Please be advised that our client’s fee for formal registration of tenants is £75.00, therefore please find enclosed the cheque for the sum of £35.00 returned as this is the not the correct fee.
I then noticed that I paid a landlord notice fee of £75.00 when I purchased the flat, I wrote to e&m again pointing out that the landlord notice fee had already been paid.
The response I received:
Please be advised
That the fee stated in the receipt from your solicitors is in regards to the notice of transfer and is a separate matter.
Please note in order to formally register your tenants we require the payment of the £75.00 fee required.

So do I just pay or do any one have any other ideas?
But was the Company's reply compliant with s.158 of the 2002 Act (and Schedule 11 thereto)?

leaseholdanswers
20-12-2010, 18:31 PM
Simple, you have notified them, you are not in breach of the lease. the only issue is the fee.

Reply I have made a reasonable fee payment , go to the LVT and have it determined if you like assuming as Jeffrey has said that they supplied you with the summary of rights and obligations for admin costs.

ellisimo7
24-12-2010, 00:38 AM
I have also just come across this forum and likewise have the same problem, same company - E&M, same extortionate fees. I am going to dispute the fees as unreasonable and offer £35 based on previous LVTs.

As an aside, I found some interesting facts about E&M: It seems that Estates & Management Limited (E&M), the Freeholder "Fairhold Atlas Limited", the management companies "Peverell OM" and "OM Property Management", and "Kingsborough Insurance Services" who provide our buildings insurance, are all part of the "Peverel Group" which would suggest that they can share information, so E&M would not have to "notify their client" Fairhold Atlas Limited "and obtain consent" since they are part of the same company.

I would be interested to know how others have got on with this company - E&M or others regarding disputing unreasonable fees.

Thanks & Merry Christmas :)



Hi,

I have just come across this forum and was very interested to read about your situation as it has many parallels to my own. I am looking to start renting in a couple of months and have just found out about the huge fees which E&M are charging. Could you let me know how you get on and who you speak to at E & M / what process you go through as I would also like to contest these disgracefully high fees.

Thanks in advance for your help! Good luck!

Gordon999
24-12-2010, 05:55 AM
Many others have problems with E&M and associates . More info on :

www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk
www.spanglefish.com/peveralaction
www.carlex.org.uk

1. Make a written complaint ( with extracts from above websites ) to your local MP and ask him/her to stand up in Parliament and call for the Serious Fraud Office to investigate the Consensus Business Group. Mr Barry Sheerman MP tried to do this in 2005 but the Housing Minister told him to direct his complaint to Companies House but we cannot be sure if Companies House know how to recognise extortionate or fraud.

2. Make a written complaint (attach the extortionate demand sent to you ) to the National Fraud Authority.

jeffrey
24-12-2010, 11:27 AM
I would be interested to know how others have got on with this company - E&M or others regarding disputing unreasonable fees.

Thanks & Merry Christmas.
E&M, and the Peverel Group, don't seem to do 'merry' or- indeed- anything much for which others have cause to thank them. Allegedly.

leaseholdanswers
24-12-2010, 15:46 PM
E&M, and the Peverel Group, don't seem to do 'merry' or- indeed- anything much for which others have cause to thank them. Allegedly.

Shareholders might......

bristol
22-01-2011, 10:18 AM
Hi everyone.
I have a flat in Cardiff on a long leasehold, and the landlords are Fairhold (Yorkshire) ltd.
The flat is an investment property so has been let to a succession of tenants since bought in 2007.
Today I received a letter from the managing agents (e&m) advising me of the breach of covenant and inviting me to apply to sublet, either as a one off, or 'globally' - presumably meaning blanket approval, for a fee of £330.
The lease refers to subletting, saying that the whole may be sublet provided under an assurred shorthold tenancy with the prior consent of the landlord which cannot be unreasonably witheld or delayed.
There is no mention of the landlord being able to demand payment of any costs in this regard.
Are they therefore entitled to demand such?
Hope someone can help.

Cheers

Lawcruncher
22-01-2011, 10:47 AM
It would be helpful to see the exact wording of the relevant clause.

Has rent been paid since the landlord became aware of the subletting?

Mrs Mug
22-01-2011, 11:09 AM
The lease refers to subletting, saying that the whole may be sublet provided under an assurred shorthold tenancy with the prior consent of the landlord which cannot be unreasonably witheld or delayed.

Did you get the landlord's consent to rent out your flat?