Can sub-letting lessee (flat) alter rights in Head Lease?

[Easy]

Can a leaseholder sub let their (downstairs) flat on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement, and grant a 'right' to a future tenant that does not form part of any rights granted in their lease, nor any obligation imposed upon nor reserved to allow the right, on the other leaseholder in the building, the upstairs flat? As the upstairs flat has no duty to allow the right, what grounds are there for complaint, from the tenant or downstairs leaseholder, if any? The 'right' is a verbal agreement only.

Can a letting agent include this 'right' as part of its sale, although it is unlikely they have any idea, or should they be informed that the right is not reserved, and could be subject to a complaint?

When letting long leasehold flats on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement are the proprietory rights and terms within the leases still appicable? I assume that no mention of existing rights are mentioned in a tenancy agreement.

[Poppy]

What rights? I don't understand what you are asking. Put a few simple questions please.

First of all, read the lease. Does the lease permit letting?

[jeffrey]

Can a leaseholder sub let their (downstairs) flat on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement?

...When letting long leasehold flats on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement are the proprietory rights and terms within the leases still appicable?

Sub-letting a flat can be a problem. See my new thread re this: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=12088

[Easy]

What rights? I don't understand what you are asking. Put a few simple questions please.

First of all, read the lease. Does the lease permit letting?

Yes? The lease states.

"Not at anytime to assign underlet or part with possession of the demised premises without first securing to the reasonable satisfaction of the lessor that the assignee or underlessee shall have entered into a binding covenant with the lessor to perform and observe the covenants restrictions and stipulations on the part of the lessee herein contained"

The downstairs flat is owned by the freeholder. The freeholder has converted/paved over the front garden, part of their demise (removed fences) to permit off street parking 'rights' to the tenant. However there are no parking rights granted or restrictions within both properties leases. As this conversion is a new 'addition'. The downstairs lease goes as far as to state.

The lessee will use the gardens belonging to the said flat and premises as garden only and will not convert the same to any other use whatsoever and will keep the same from weeds and properly cultivated to the satisfaction of the lessor

[jeffrey]

Yes? The lease states.

"Not at anytime to assign underlet or part with possession of the demised premises without first securing to the reasonable satisfaction of the lessor that the assignee or underlessee shall have entered into a binding covenant with the lessor to perform and observe the covenants restrictions and stipulations on the part of the lessee herein contained"
OK. Head Lease restricts subletting but does not prohibit it.
However, a new obligation on ST to comply with Head Lease covenants (except re payments) in favour of Head Lessor:
a. can be imposed. by Deed of Covenant; and
b. will satisfy the pre-requisite for subletting.

[Easy]

OK. Head Lease restricts subletting but does not prohibit it.
However, a new obligation on ST to comply with Head Lease covenants (except re payments) in favour of Head Lessor:
a. can be imposed. by Deed of Covenant; and
b. will satisfy the pre-requisite for subletting.


Thanks. Would the ST be made aware and comply with Head Lease covenants or can the lessor just ignore?

[jeffrey]

Thanks. Would the ST be made aware and comply with Head Lease covenants or can the lessor just ignore?

T has to make ST aware- e.g. by:
a. giving him a copy of the lease; or
b. annexing that copy to the AST etc.

[Easy]

Okay thank you Jeffrey. Would/should the letting agency require the T to provide them with a copy of the lease to attach to the AST agreement? Would it be reasonable to inform the letting agency that as regards parking rights, there is no reserved right to park, as they have advertised? Apart from that the ST has to satisfy the covenants within the lease as exist.

[Easy]

I have just located a sample/template for a Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement and listed under Use of Property is:

(3.10) Where the Landlord's interest is derived from another lease ("the Headlease") then it is agreed that the Tenant will observe the restrictions in the Headlease applicable to the Property. A copy of the Headlease, if applicable, is attached.

[jeffrey]

Okay thank you Jeffrey. Would/should the letting agency require the T to provide them with a copy of the lease to attach to the AST agreement? Would it be reasonable to inform the letting agency that as regards parking rights, there is no reserved right to park, as they have advertised? Apart from that the ST has to satisfy the covenants within the lease as exist.

Yes. Of course T cannot expect ST to comply with undisclosed requirements; and T's omission to tell ST will not free T from responsibility for breach of long lease covenants when L points out breaches committed by ST but imputed to T.
T's letting agency must never advertise or offer rights that do not exist. False advertising is a criminal offence.

[Easy]

Yes. Of course T cannot expect ST to comply with undisclosed requirements; and T's omission to tell ST will not free T from responsibility for breach of long lease covenants when L points out breaches committed by ST but imputed to T.
T's letting agency must never advertise or offer rights that do not exist. False advertising is a criminal offence.

Thats excellent Jeffrey. Thank you for your clarity.

[Easy]

The estate agents that have now let the flat in question have replied (on the subject of the headlease).

Our contract states:

"the tenant agrees to adhere to any agreements or restrictions contained in any superior or head lease affecting the premises which may bind the landlord (or tenant) in the use or occupation of the premises. The landlord will make any superior or head lease available to the tenant as appropriate"

(Certain this has not happened). Agents go on to say:

It is obviously in their contract to adhere to this but if a head lease was not provided then a court could argue that as this was not provided then they would not know what to adhere to. On the other side of the argument as it is in the tenants contract then it could be argued that the tenants did not request one.

I always think it is advisable to stop any problems by providing the tenants with a copy of the head lease so there is no confusion either way, regards.

[jeffrey]

So it sounds like they agree with post #10. Good.