Permission To Sublet Denied My Freeholder in Lease Help!

steadynerve

interesting very few people are picking up on the OFt sitating this clause is unfair. i realise the OFT don't nake the law and equally just because something is put in the lease by the freeholderdoesn't amke it the law either. but losts of people are thinking because its in the lease it is the law.

I suppose technically nothing in a lease is binding until it has been taken to court and been ratified as being legally ok. its just that this has already happened with most clauses so you know what to expect. As i understand this clause has not been yet tested in the courts..

(would you take the clause in th lease as gospel if it had said leaseholders can only where rred and yellow spotted pyjamas and the oft deemed this to be unfair. It would still perhaps be a cluase that hadn't been tested in court- but only an example so please dont tell me if it has!!)

ILW

steadynerve wrote: »

interesting very few people are picking up on the OFt sitating this clause is unfair. i realise the OFT don't nake the law and equally just because something is put in the lease by the freeholderdoesn't amke it the law either. but losts of people are thinking because its in the lease it is the law.

I suppose technically nothing in a lease is binding until it has been taken to court and been ratified as being legally ok. its just that this has already happened with most clauses so you know what to expect. As i understand this clause has not been yet tested in the courts..

(would you take the clause in th lease as gospel if it had said leaseholders can only where rred and yellow spotted pyjamas and the oft deemed this to be unfair. It would still perhaps be a cluase that hadn't been tested in court- but only an example so please dont tell me if it has!!)

Will you be using your young daughters money to fund the case, or just raiding your mothers bank account?

steadynerve

Can i remind people that the circumstances would be fully expalined to any prospective tenant and their supporting family membrs and the freeholder!!

Its interesting very few people are picking up n the Offive of Fair Trading deeming the clause in the lease to be unfair. The Oft dont make the law but then neither does the freeholder.

I suppose the lagality of the terms in the lease are only really descided when the cours uphold then and it appears this clause has not been contested in court yet.

As a silly example whsat if the lease said tenants msut wear rred pyjamas (and the OFT indicated this was unfair). would it be wrong to let the flat to someone eho only ever wore blue. and then risk that the freeholder might take the tenant to court and possibly win and they face eviction.

i would think in this example it would be perfectly acceptable to go ahead with the tenancy explaining to the tenant there may be a problem about the pyjamas and letting him decide if he wanted to ahead.

I'm sorrythe example is so silly but i hope its gets people thinking a little differently.

Fire_Fox

steadynerve wrote: »

interesting very few people are picking up on the OFt sitating this clause is unfair. i realise the OFT don't nake the law and equally just because something is put in the lease by the freeholderdoesn't amke it the law either. but losts of people are thinking because its in the lease it is the law.

I suppose technically nothing in a lease is binding until it has been taken to court and been ratified as being legally ok. its just that this has already happened with most clauses so you know what to expect. As i understand this clause has not been yet tested in the courts..

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

BitterAndTwisted

Please stop focusing on the terms of the lease and start thinking about the legality of what you are proposing to do and the risks you might be taking with someone else's estate. Like a prison sentence, for example.

pitkin2020

franklee wrote: »

So you are going to tell the tenant in advance it's an unauthorised let? Really? And you still expect to get a good tenant :rotfl:



I'd suggest the more active and able over 60's (and I agree many of them are still in top form) would not want to live in sheltered accommodation. Not least because the maintenance charges are so high (to pay for the wardens etc.) and they would not want that unnecessary expense which presumably would be reflected in a higher rent than non sheltered comparable flats.

The fact is moving house is one of the most stressful things anyone can do. It is quite common for people who move when they are older to die soon after and that's not just the in your words "sit around all day supping cups of tea waiting for death" types. My uncle died of a heart attack a week after moving to his dream seaside bungalow and he was an intelligent and active man to the last.

It is also stressful to have bad neighbours which could easily happen if the OP installs the tenant from hell, likely as there are probably less takers for sheltered accommodation than normal lets, especially as we are to believe the OP is going to warn the tenant upfront about the freeholder's view. Not to mention the other owner occupiers reaction to an unauthorised tenant in their mist as already said.

My response was merely to the post that old people are most likely to die from shock if they move home. Yes they have a higher chance compared with a younger person but not every old person is going to die from moving.

Sorry but the OP is an idiot who is trying to fight an "unfair" contract clause, who will not only lose the fight but will also loose a lot of money. I think not being allowed to smoke in a pub is unfair and I could take it to court and fight it, but how much would it cost me. I can't see what the OP is trying to gain by renting rather than selling, unless the OP expects house prices to double in a few years.

Either way there is plenty of older people who do not have the funds and need to rent wheter it be in sheltered accomodation or not. The op will not get any tennants as people need security no matter what age they are, and whilst i'm fully aware no tennancy is 100% secure forever the last thing you want to know is you COULD be evicted in a couple of days, months or even years.

bitsandpieces

When the tenant first moves in, the AST would give them a right to be there 6 months. I wonder if they could sue if they're evicted within that time period, or subsequently evicted without the correct notice from the Landlady?

Anyway, stop and think about what you're planning. You're planning to make money by renting an atypical, hard-to-let property without freeholder permission while also fighting a prolonged court case :rotfl: By the way, do you know how much time and hassle is involved in a long court case? Also, because you're doing this as PoA, you also run the risk of legal action if this doesn't work out as planned and you end up losing a load of your mum's money.

OFT may have ruled that such clauses are unfair. This hasn't been tested in court and - assuming your case is taken on its merits - you'd be in the unfortunate situation of bringing a case where the clause is comparatively well-justified.

If you sell the property, this will bring in a sum of money and it's sorted. Try to rent it out as planned, and there's all kinds of things that could go massively wrong.

calmspirit

the only light I can see in this thread is that one day the OP's daughter (from whom they are stealing NOW) will one day choose the care home for the OP ...... I hope she treats the OP with the same contempt that they are treating their kin.

How can someone contemplate stealing from their vulnerable parent AND their dependant child ?????

Pointless posting any reply really as the OP clearly does not see the wrong in their actions.

franklee

steadynerve wrote: »

Can i remind people that the circumstances would be fully expalined to any prospective tenant and their supporting family membrs and the freeholder!!

I'm very confused what this tenant would be paying for. Presumably he/she would require the services of the warden (else why choose sheltered accommodation). Now think who employs the warden, ultimately it's the freeholder's choice of management. So if they say the warden shouldn't attend to the tenant for whom there is no permission to let what then, will the tenant be left without assistance when they most need it?

aeb_2

The threat of eviction must be stressful at any age, not just over 60's. What a shocking plan by the OP

My mum bought a retirement bungalow 20 years ago, one of about 25 with a warden. They were buy to rent out till you needed it. Apparently this was popular in the mid 1980's. The tenant had to be at least 10 years older than the purchaser and the rent was set so it paid only the low fixed mortgage. The idea being a tenant who could not afford to buy had somewhere nice to live and the buyer had an investment in the future. Everyone seemed happy.

My mum let to a man in his early 70's, 15 yrs her senior. He is so happy there that he is still going strong at 97, you would think he was 67! He still cycles everywhere and even does a weekly paper round!

In theory she can give him notice but in reality there is no way she would do that, it would kill him in an instant. Fortunately she doesn't need her bungalow yet but there are others on the development who do and are waiting for elderly tenants to pass on. I think it gets difficult.

This sounded a good idea in the 80's but is probably the reason why this set up didn't catch on (well, maybe they did, I not an expert) It's much more than about money and getting round the laws. Peoples lives and well being is at stake here.