Permission To Sublet Denied My Freeholder in Lease Help!

steadynerve

Hi
My mother purchased a retirement flat 9in a complex of 20 or so) with a resident warden. But has now had to move into a home. The family is involved in either selling or renting the flat on her behalf.

The property is owned outright with no mortgage.

However the freeholder (mamanging company) indicates that the lease prohobits subletting. We have contacts AIMS- Age concern and they indicated that the office of fair trading deems such clauses to be unfair. But at this time there is no case which has come to court to contest this. The oft says leases should read - the property should not be sublet with out the freeholdrens permisson - which will not be unreasonably withhled (or words to that effect)

WE are hoping that pointing all this out to the mahanging agent will get them to change their minds. (its guardian or anchor trust i think). They do indicate on their webiste that some estates already allow this so interesting to know why this one doesn't.

has anybody any helpful advice on this .

I was wondering if we sublet any way and the tenant was awae of the problem but didn;t mind than the freeholder would have to go to court anyway. I would have though this unlikley as there is not much to be gained by them presumably they would win the right for the tenant to leave and costs but little else?

If this happened does nay one know what court it would go to. And how much it would cost in legal fees if we went ahead but stopped if we lost the first hearing. If we pulled out and agreed to stop subletting just before the court case if it ever got that far could we advoid large costs that way.

Any help/advice/relevant experiences appreciated?

BitterAndTwisted

If gaining permission to sub-let is going to be troublesome, complicated and therefore expensive then the family should sell.

PasturesNew

I'd have thought you didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. These type of properties/environments are built for a specific purpose, to house people "just like themselves". They're all owner-occupiers, of retired age.

You should just sell it. If it's not selling, then it must be priced too high.

Even if you DID manage to get it all pushed through, how would you feel about evicting an ill OAP who was a tenant from hell or stopped paying you rent?

Fire_Fox

What is stopping you selling? Surely that would free up money for your mother's care? Who do you think it's appropriate to let a retirement flat to, when the remaining units are full of vulnerable people? It's not usual to go to court for leasehold disputes you use a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

silvercar

was wondering if we sublet any way and the tenant was awae of the problem but didn;t mind than the freeholder would have to go to court anyway. I would have though this unlikley as there is not much to be gained by them presumably they would win the right for the tenant to leave and costs but little else?

If this happened does nay one know what court it would go to. And how much it would cost in legal fees if we went ahead but stopped if we lost the first hearing. If we pulled out and agreed to stop subletting just before the court case if it ever got that far could we advoid large costs that way

Total madness to even try this. Apart from the freeholders legal costs and any other expenses they can throw at you, you would also have the costs from breaching the tenancy agreement between you (as landlord) and the tenant. If the tenant was "vunerable" in any way and suffered ill health due to a forced move, your costs could go through the roof. That is apart from any discomfort the poor tenant is made to feel by the owner occupier resentment towards the tenant.

Why would you even want to go there?

steadynerve

Yes this really the question - how nuch are the landlords legal cost and other expenses they can throw at us!!

i dont see it being a problen with the tenant (in terms of breach of tenancy0 as if the lease say allowed for 1 months notice i think we easily have that time to serve notie onthe tenant even if the freehoder won the court case.

I should have added we would want to try and do this as it mother has no need of such a large sum of money -she has severe dementia. Her care costs are ocvered. Rrenting would allow her to have an untaxed income and also postpone the sale of the flat to a more convenient time. We are really just managing the rest of the estate now for the benfit of the inheritors as mother is unable to make any kind of basic decision on spending money and has her needs well taken care of.

We would look for a tenant who had support of their family so they and the the famliy understood the situation. The circumstances would be explained fully beforehand. I do think the flat would appeal to someoe who could afford to rent but did not havethe capital to buy and also if money run out i think social services would cover the cost as this is just a basic 1 bedroom flat and the person has to live somewhere.

The only issue would be if we needed to serve notice if we wanted to sell quickly (perhaps when our mohter died) or if the landlord won the case to have the tenant leave. But this is the same with all renting and is always distressing for the tenant. But many old people will haveto dace moves to care homes etc so still is a relatively normal occurence.

the main probelm is jsut the clause in the lease.

ILW

I would have thought the other residents who bought into an owner occupied block may have something to say about a renter moving in. They could probably sue the freeholder for allowing the terms to be broken.

Fire_Fox

steadynerve wrote: »

Yes this really the question - how nuch are the landlords legal cost and other expenses they can throw at us!!

i dont see it being a problen with the tenant (in terms of breach of tenancy0 as if the lease say allowed for 1 months notice i think we easily have that time to serve notie onthe tenant even if the freehoder won the court case.

The only issue would be if we needed to serve notice if we wanted to sell quickly (perhaps when our mohter died) or if the landlord won the case to have the tenant leave. But this is the same with all renting and is always distressing for the tenant. But many old people will haveto dace moves to care homes etc so still is a relatively normal occurence.

the main probelm is jsut the clause in the lease.

The tenant will be protected by an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, which is a minumum six months in length and a minimum TWO months notice from the landlord, coinciding with a rental period. There is no legal way around this.

The long lease usually has a covenant whereby the freeholder is able to charge ALL legal costs to the leaseholder, this assumes they win the case at a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal or in court.

PasturesNew

steadynerve wrote: »

i dont see it being a problen with the tenant (in terms of breach of tenancy0 as if the lease say allowed for 1 months notice i think we easily have that time to serve notie onthe tenant even if the freehoder won the court case.

Well, you're an idiot then. A selfish idiot.

Think what you're saying: I don't give a monkey's chuff about some dear old soul, who has paid good money in fees and deposits to move in, I'll just turf them out on the street, unsettle them, put them under stress and into panic - possibly without them even having the spare cash to find and secure another home.

You're just an OAP abuser. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That aside - you can't. It's illegal. Once moved in, they'd have rights and it would take months, possibly courts and bailiffs to get them out. You appear to know nothing.

steadynerve wrote: »

The only issue would be if we needed to serve notice if we wanted to sell quickly (perhaps when our mohter died) or if the landlord won the case to have the tenant leave. But this is the same with all renting and is always distressing for the tenant. But many old people will haveto dace moves to care homes etc so still is a relatively normal occurence.

You can't go round willy nilly serving notice. Usually, when people move into that type of supportive environment it's "for life", or until they're carted off to more intensive care (like your own relative). They aren't happy-go-lucky teens who want to be moving about, people in this type of accommodation pretty much expect to be there for life.

steadynerve wrote: »

the main probelm is jsut the clause in the lease.

No, the main problem is you.

Regular readers will be surprised at what I've put here, but you've really angered me. You're a horrid person, you really are.

ILW

I think its called "inheritance fever". Some get it pretty bad at the first smell of the cash.

silvercar

We would look for a tenant who had support of their family so they and the the famliy understood the situation. The circumstances would be explained fully beforehand.

So how does the advert read??

" Flat available, suitable for elderly, must be prepared to move out with less than a weeks notice."

Seriously, you can grant an AST for any length but a landlord can't terminate an AST in the first 6 months. So, unless the tenant breached the AST by not paying rent or similar, you could n't turf them out in the first 6 months. Whatever conditions you have explained before hand, you cannot deny tenants their leggal rights.

Most likely scenario is that a neighbour has a friendly chat with your new tenant, finds out they are renting and reports you. That could take less than a week. What do you then do? You have a tenant with a legal right to remain under the AST you have granted for another 5 months + and a freeholder demanding you remove the tenant imminently.