Permission To Sublet Denied My Freeholder in Lease Help!

steadynerve

thanks for your replies. some interesting poists rasied although not as yet too much ion the legal side.

I noticed a lot of people feel the rented sector (with an AST) is not a suitable option for the over 60s because they need more security than first six motnhs and then 2 months. This thread wan't really a discussion about this.

When we were renting the landlord served notice on us when we were going throught a difficut patch wife going throught chemo hteraphy (he wanted to sell the house and to give him credit he did manage to sel it at the peak!!). I'm not saying this was easy but when we took on the lease we understood this could happen at any time and just had to accept it.

I see nothing morally wrong with serving notice as long as you have clearly explained this possibility at the start of the lease and the tenant has the full capacity to uderstand the issues invloved.

So please can i request no more comments on the unsuitabiirt of the rented sector for over 60s (but of course feel free to start a new thread on this issue)

martindow

steadynerve wrote: »

thanks for your replies.

I'm not sure why you're thanking people when you're not taking any of their advice

angel81

steadynerve wrote: »

Renting 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.

What makes you think that this income would be untaxed? I'm not an expert but I can't think of any clauses that would allow this (unless her total income including rental fell beneath her personal allowance).

TBH, I agree with a lot of other posters on this thread, between you wanting to manage your mothers estate 'for the benefit of the inheritors' and wanting to use your 6 year old's money for your own gain I think you are a very selfish person. You should think about the needs of your vulnerable family members, not your own financial gain

steadynerve

Yes thats right its untaxed as its her only income and will be below her personal allowance. This is one of the reasons its attractive finacially and obviouly its good advice to make as much use of your personal allowances as possible.

bitsandpieces

steadynerve wrote: »

Yes thats right its untaxed as its her only income and will be below her personal allowance. This is one of the reasons its attractive finacially and obviouly its good advice to make as much use of your personal allowances as possible.

Are your mum's care costs covered by/care provided by family members, then? Otherwise - whichever route you take - you'll have to be aware of how this might affect means assessment.

As the person with Power of Attorney, you're responsible for protecting your mum's interests. If this is her only asset - and you're risking it in this way - there is a real concern that she might be left unable to meet her living expenses

PasturesNew

The OP pointed out similar developments where renting was allowed, I wonder if on inspection those rental agreements would turn out to be a specially drawn up rental agreement (not an AST) which is befitting the type of tenants they'd expect to have. So they might have extra-special-strong rights.

Imagine if the OP sold this flat, bought one of those that you can rent out ... then found they had dug a bigger hole for themselves and couldn't evict that person ... who eventually ends up as the oldest living person in the world.

steadynerve

Her care is fully funded by the NHS due to the severity of her condition (CHC). This isn't guareenteed for life but is expected to continue for some time. If it was stopped then a charge would go on her home and when the house was sold the auuthorities would take out the tab first. due to her condition her life expectancy is 4 or so years but she make of course live much longer ( her quality of life isalready very poorand the condition is likley to keep on worseining),

Any rental income would therfore for the time being be untaxed and not impact on benefits and if full funding was to stop it would then allow her to pay for care intitally until her savings were exhausted and a charge put on the house.

franklee

Maybe you could answer the warden question? #50

chewmylegoff

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!!

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.

you have a funny way of interpreting contract law.

to say that the contract is not binding until it has been tested in the courts is ridiculous.

a rather more sensible way of looking at it, is that it is binding until it has been tested in the courts and found not to be binding. you acknowledge yourself that the OFT doesn't make the law. further, the OFT's comments on this situation are probably designed with a normal flat in mind, not one that is part of a specific development for over 60s.

your mother presumably was aware of the terms of the leasehold when she purchased this place, and therefore purchased in the knowledge that she would not be able to let the place if she moved into care.

i would suggest that, in fact, you are just trying to find some way to ignore the contract because you think that you will get more inheritance if you delay the sale.

jude21212

I know I've come late to this thread ....but I'm in similar situation.

My father died 2 years ago. He owned an Anchor/Guardian flat with a total restriction against letting. His flat has now been on the market for over 18 months with the price being reduced on a regular basis in accordance with estate agents recommendations ( 3 separate agents ).
All agents tell us there is just not the demand to buy these properties but that they could easily rent it out to someone who came in the age bracket ( apparently there is increasing numbers of over 60s who prefer to rent ).

Originally Anchor told us that we could rent if the other residents on the estate consented - we sent each a note and had several letters saying no problem but not everyone replied and the warden on site did object ( we weren't sure if he had objections from other residents who preferred not to tell us or not ). That was over a year ago. Now Anchor are saying that's not an option and that they could only agree to allow the flat to be rented if all leases on site were changed. I've said that it would be enough for them to give everyone the option to change if they wanted ...they don't have to change them all. But it seems we're stuck.

My sister and I are now paying out money every month for an empty flat with no prospect of selling - the agents say it would help if we could put a board outside or a sign in the window. Anchor have refused permission.

So question ...any ideas ? And can anyone give me a link to the OFT decision saying that they weren't keen on these clauses ?