Revision of flat extension under licence

[allewitor]

As landlord of a leasehold flat that has conctructed a balcony on the roof of a porch, and does not appear to have obtained a Lease extension to regularise the structure, can I withdraw the licence that was granted by the pervious landlord?

[jeffrey]

As landlord of a leasehold flat that has conctructed a balcony on the roof of a porch, and does not appear to have obtained a Lease extension to regularise the structure, can I withdraw the licence that was granted by the previous landlord?
You don't mean "extension of term" but "extension of balcony", I think.
So previous L granted Licence to Alter. The flat was altered. What is problem? Please explain!

[allewitor]

My question is, if landlord wishes the balcony to be removed and the building restored to its previous condition, does it then becoming the responsibility of the Leaseholder to oversee and finance this on retraction of the Licence to Alter by Landlord.

[jeffrey]

My question is, if landlord wishes the balcony to be removed and the building restored to its previous condition, does it then becoming the responsibility of the Leaseholder to oversee and finance this on retraction of the Licence to Alter by Landlord.
A Licence to Alter which is valid and unconditional is a permanent permission by the then L to the then T, authorising the alteration (and binding on all successive reversioners). L cannot:
a. retract it unilaterally; nor
b. require T to reinstate property as it was before.

[allewitor]

Thanks Jeffrey. Would those conditions apply if there is no written confirmation of the arrangement or paperwork to back up the alteration?

[jeffrey]

Thanks Jeffrey. Would those conditions apply if there is no written confirmation of the arrangement or paperwork to back up the alteration?
But you said that there IS a Licence to Alter. What do you mean by "written confirmation...or paperwork"?

[allewitor]

Oh, I do apologise. I thought a verbal agreement between L & T constituted a Licence, does it have to be in written form to qualify as a Licence?

The balcony is not detailed on the Lease Plan that accompanies the Freehold Title the balcony has been created by the tenant, but without any formal written agreement created by either Tenant or previous Lanalord. Does this make a difference?

[jeffrey]

Oh, I do apologise. I thought a verbal agreement between L & T constituted a Licence, does it have to be in written form to qualify as a Licence?

The balcony is not detailed on the Lease Plan that accompanies the Freehold Title the balcony has been created by the tenant, but without any formal written agreement created by either Tenant or previous Lanalord. Does this make a difference?
So how do you know that Licence to Alter was given at all?

[allewitor]

Because the Leaseholder of the flat suggests in a letter that an agreement was made between them and original L. Yes, you are quite right there is no evidence that the previously landlord gave their consent. The only obvious reason for suggesting there was an agreement verbally is the fact that the structure is constructed the flat where original L resided it could not of been constructed unnoticed.

My question is, as this matter has not been formalised can new L request removal?

[jeffrey]

Because the Leaseholder of the flat suggests in a letter that an agreement was made between them and original L. Yes, you are quite right there is no evidence that the previously landlord gave their consent. The only obvious reason for suggesting there was an agreement verbally is the fact that the structure is constructed the flat where original L resided it could not of been constructed unnoticed.

My question is, as this matter has not been formalised can new L request removal?
T is in breach of lease unless:
a. T can prove that L gave consent at the time; or
b. L gives consent noe; or
c. L (past or current) issued a clear receipt for ground rent- this cures breach of covenant in favour of a leasehold purchaser, under s.45(2) of Law of Property Act 1925, unless receipt refutes this implication; or
d. it was a one-off breach (not a continuing breach) more than twelve years ago- Limitation Act 1980 cures breach by making any enforcement action barred on effluxion of time.

[allewitor]

I understand your comments on the different issues. If construction, for arguments sake, was over 12 years ago, are you suggestion a Licence would have automatically been granted. My understanding was that once a Licence had been granted/created, as long as Landlord gave notice he could request that on a certain date the Licence was revoked. Do you know if this is correct?

[jeffrey]

I understand your comments on the different issues. If construction, for arguments sake, was over 12 years ago, are you suggestion a Licence would have automatically been granted. My understanding was that once a Licence had been granted/created, as long as Landlord gave notice he could request that on a certain date the Licence was revoked. Do you know if this is correct?
No and no.
When the supposed Licence was given is slightly irrelevant, as there is no proof that it was.
If construction was > 12 yrs. ago, and if it was a one-off breach of covenant, passage of time would cure the breach- that's all.
A Licence to Alter might be unconditional or conditional. The latter could allow alteration for a defined period of years, or during the curent lessee's ownership, and then state that the Licence thereupon expires.
If an unconditional Licence is granted (by Deed, to ensure its binding effect), the rebuttable assumption is that it is permanent.

[allewitor]

Would it be possible to regularise this matter by creating a Licence to Alter to the Tenant. Would it then be possible to restrict the life of the structure to the present Leaseholder or could the current owner resist this?

[jeffrey]

Would it be possible to regularise this matter by creating a Licence to Alter to the Tenant. Would it then be possible to restrict the life of the structure to the present Leaseholder or could the current owner resist this?
Yes- it's theoretically possible, but it depends on the factors that I've already explained. Why should:
a. L allow T off the hook, if there's no Licence yet; or
b. T allow L to demand removal of part of the property, if there is an unconditional Licence?