Permission To Sublet Denied My Freeholder in Lease Help!

BitterAndTwisted

PN: I am one of those idle nutters! I'd be happy to track down and pee through the letter-box of the OP if they decide to go ahead with this. If I knew their address I'd be willing to send them jobbies through the post every day as well. Maybe we could have a whip-round for the P&P costs now?

steadynerve

Yes thast is an interesting poiint aboutthe complications regarding acting on behalf of my mother. Thank you. I think i would like to leave that complication aside and just consider the situation as if the flat was mine. Obvioulsy i'm not going to do anything on behalf of my mother that i wouldn't do myself anyway).

I am not sure i can believe the poster who indicated that if the tenancy is fond illegal ( and dont forget the OFT think is the lease that is illegal/unfair not the tenacy) then the tenant is evicted straightaway - althought it was a good read. I think the courts would also have to consider the tenants rights and thins would be done taking these until account and yes i am gusessing but i think the 1 month notice would be allowed to run its course naturely.

Its an intersted point about the Leasehold Vluation Trubunal - would they be actually dfeainkg with this - or would it be anormal court.Does anyone know any maore on this?

oldMcDonald

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

This someone is obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that relative. Should decisions not be made in the best interests of the relative all responsibilities and costs involved could be placed directly upon the shoulders of the decision-maker.

steadynerve wrote: »

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.

You are not supposed to be 'managing the rest of the estate ...for the benfit of the inheritors', you are supposed to be running it for the benifit of your mum.

BitterAndTwisted

Quite, but this might be an elegant distinction too subtle for the OP to appreciate for the moment. This is one of the very many reasons why Power of Attorney should never be awarded to anyone with even the most distant possibility of being a beneficiary or even standing in the same room as one. I wouldn't trust the second-cousin's best-friend's cat in such circumstances where even a mere fiver was concerned.

Fire_Fox

"Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 an application may be made:

• for a determination in relation to an alleged breach of a lease covenant (in connection with forfeiture)."

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=18

Also search LVT decisions for subletting: can't copy and paste as they are PDFs.


"Notice by Landlord
To end a shorthold tenancy the landlord must give at least two months' noticeunder Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act. For notices - see
The notice cannot take effect for at least six months or until the original agreed term has expired.
Where the tenancy has become a periodic one the notice given must expire on the last day of a rent period. For example, if a monthly periodic tenancy rent day is the 20th of the month, the two month notice period must end on the 19th of the month in question.
There is nothing to say you cannot give more than two months' notice. Therefore a landlord could service a two month Section 21 notice soon after the granting of a six month term to take effect at the end of that term."
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/notice_to_quit.htm


"Right i've just witnessed a repossession in progress opposite my house. The Tenants are renting and have a tenency agreement. The baliefs entered through the unlocked front door and were promptly chased out by a pretty large dog. The Tenant then came out to speak to the balief that they belived to be a burgerly.

The balief then issued a notice of repossesion to the tenant. They claimed that the original notice was issued on the 28 of october but they only moved into the house on the 2nd of november. the balief stated that they would be back at 18:00 with the police to evict them.

They returned as stated and smashed the door down and took posession giving the tenants a number that they can call tomorrow to collect their belongings. It seems to me that this is an illegal entry on behalf of the baliefs on the grounds that the tenants have legal right to remain in the property because they only recieved the notice of the eviction today."
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2138037

oldMcDonald

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=29148237&highlight=#post29148237

Another post by the OP regarding using their 6YO Dd money to pay off their mortgage.

steadynerve

yes thank you for the replies
Please refer to the earlier post about my mums position this is not an issue.

I've just realised but i think any court case about the legality of subletting would be just that. If it was found that subletting was illegal then yes that would be mean the tenancy is not legal. But the tenat would still be able to stay in the flat until an eviction process wass started and went through. I think this process would probably take longer than the 1 month notice they may have been served at anytie if the lease was longer.

I dont know of the tenatn would acquire any costs as arsult fo the eviction process but presumably that could be covered by a agreement between us that in such a scenario any costs imbosed would be met by myself.

I suppose ita a bit like a tenant saying t saying there lease is still say in the initial six month period of assured tenancy when it is not. The court case would first rule if there occupancy was legal or not and if it was not. The this would give the green light to the landlord to stat the eviction proces.

greenface

dont think you would get correct insurance to cover you/the tenant.

Fire_Fox

"What are my duties as an Attorney? The Mental Capacity Act 2005 imposes some specific duties. When acting under an LPA you have a duty:

• to act in accordance with the Act’s principles;
  • in particular to act or make decisions in the donor’s best interests;
• to have regard to the guidance in the Code of Practice;
• to act only within the scope of your authority as attorney.

When agreeing to act as attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney you are taking on a role that carries a great deal of power which you must use carefully and responsibly.
Other duties and obligations are set out in chapter 7 of the Code of Practice. They include:

• A duty of due care when making decisions on behalf of the donor
• To carry out instructions as required by the LPA
• A duty not to delegate the powers given to you under the LPA unless you have been authorised to do so
• Not to benefit yourself but to benefit the donor - this means avoiding conflicts of interest and in particular not profiting or acquiring personal benefit from your position
• A duty of good faith, which means to act with honesty, and integrity
• A duty of confidentiality - to keep the donor’s affairs confidential unless the donor has consented otherwise
• To comply with the directions of the Court of Protection
• Not to give up the role without telling the donor and the Court.

And specifically in relation to Property and Financial Affairs LPAs:

• To keep the donor’s money and property separate from your own
• To keep accurate accounts of your dealings as attorney.

These duties are described in greater detail in the Code of Practice which you should read if you are deciding whether to take on the role of attorney. If you become an attorney you will have a legal duty to have regard to the contents of the Code.
If you do not perform your duties properly, you may be ordered to compensate the donor for any losses they have suffered as a result. Anyone ill-treating or wilfully neglecting someone they have care of who lacks capacity, or to whom an LPA appointment relates, can be found guilty of a criminal offence. The penalty for such an offence is a fine and/or a sentence of imprisonment of up to five years."

http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/decisions/role-duties-attorney.htm

BitterAndTwisted

oldMcDonald wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=29148237&highlight=#post29148237

Another post by the OP regarding using their 6YO Dd money to pay off their mortgage.

CRIKEY! Mere words cannot describe my disgust and dismay at what appears to be the selfishness, greed and stupidity of this odious person and what seems to me to be their intentions. Six year-old child, mum with dementia. Is no-one safe? *shudders*