Translation of legalese please!

lynneinjapan

My parents own a flat in a small block built on church land with a 999-year lease and my mum is secretary / a director for the company representing the owners of the flats in the block. One of the flats is currently being sold and I understand that the buyer has asked the vendor for Covenant 9 in a deed supplementary to the lease (below) to be deleted. Can anyone tell us what it means, and advise us as to whether approving the change is likely to have any undesirable repercussions?

sonastin

My god that's particularly dense legalese! The only document I've read which is harder to understand is the lease of our office block which was drawn up in 1853!

I think that it relates to the buyer being able to tranfer or let the property. So they would have to seek permission to sell (which I think is sort of standard but I'm really not too sure - I think that's the bit where you normally have to get involved with the freeholder. But I think that it also relates to renting out the property, so if they're looking to purchase it as a Buy-to-Let, this covenant could be a problem.

That is my 'experienced layman's point of view but I could be wrong as it is really hard going. It would be worth a quick chat with an independent solicitor - I'm sure the management company accounts could stretch to a bit of legal advice if it kept the flats protected from misunderstanding what this is about.

vax2002

Basically it states that the other terms of the lease listed in all paragraphs before 9 will not apply if you try to sell the property lease on (foregoing restrictions shall not apply) that means all the good bits written before section 9 don't apply when you think you can sell it.
Foregoing means that onward of section 9 applies to mortgages held upon the property.
Basically, the lease is non transferable without permission of who you signed it with.

jc808

No wonder lawyers/ etc can command such high fees if they can decipher that garbage

vax2002

It is a language devised to trick people out of goods and money, words have completely separate meaning
must= may/ are asked
ordered = requested
registration = to give away title of ownership
apply= to beg
application to beg in writing
granted = on condition of contract
permission = of what we own
keeper = trustee of our property

Buy Blacks law dictionary, you will never sign another contract again...

G_M

No, not quite as said above. I tried to insert explanations in the text but you've pasted it in!

1) owner of lease cannot split the property up - "transfer ... part only" eg divide a flat into 2 flats and sell one of them.
2) owner of lease can only sell the lease for the total remaining period of the lease, unless he gets permission. eg it's a 999 year lease. It was set up 49 years ago, so 950 years remain. Owner must sell the full 950 year lease - he cannot sell a 50 year lease and then get it back (or his children get it back!). Without permission.
3) And if permission IS given (to 2 above) for a shorter lease to be sold (eg 50 years) the buyer of that shorter lease must agree "sign a deed" to all the conditions in the original lease.

Clear?

Oh - and why is it such convoluted language?
Well, partly (believe it or not!) to make it unambiguous (not the same as clear/easy to understand).
And partly cos the English Legal system is ony set down by statute (Acts of Parliament) in 50% of instances. The other 50% is 'precedent'. ie what courts have decided in the past has to be followed by courts today. And as the 'past' may = 300 years, well, try reading Chaucer. Or even Shakespeare.

System

You are perfectly free to use your own easy to understand language. But be prepared to find that you have walked innocently into a minefield and that the experts are a bit reluctant to follow and rescue you.

Yorkie1

G_M wrote: »

No, not quite as said above. I tried to insert explanations in the text but you've pasted it in!

1) owner of lease cannot split the property up - "transfer ... part only" eg divide a flat into 2 flats and sell one of them.

2) owner of lease can only sell the lease for the total remaining period of the lease, unless he gets permission. eg it's a 999 year lease. It was set up 49 years ago, so 950 years remain. Owner must sell the full 950 year lease - he cannot sell a 50 year lease and then get it back (or his children get it back!). Without permission.

3) And if permission IS given (to 2 above) for a shorter lease to be sold (eg 50 years) the buyer of that shorter lease must agree "sign a deed" to all the conditions in the original lease.

The implication of 2) is that the flat cannot be rented out. The buyers want to rent out the flat.

I would expect every flat in the block to have identical provisions in their leases.

There will have been reasons for imposing that clause and you should not delete it lightly; I don't know whether legally you would need to consult before amending the lease or are even prevented from doing so.

If you decide to delete the clause, you will not be able to justify its retention for further flats. Others in the block of flats may have deliberately chosen to buy there in the knowledge that short-term rentals would not occur; you may run the risk of the other owners being up in arms about potential reduction in value of their flats if many others are rented out.

DVardysShadow

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The implication of 2) is that the flat cannot be rented out. The buyers want to rent out the flat.

I would expect every flat in the block to have identical provisions in their leases.

There will have been reasons for imposing that clause and you should not delete it lightly; I don't know whether legally you would need to consult before amending the lease or are even prevented from doing so.

If you decide to delete the clause, you will not be able to justify its retention for further flats. Others in the block of flats may have deliberately chosen to buy there in the knowledge that short-term rentals would not occur; you may run the risk of the other owners being up in arms about potential reduction in value of their flats if many others are rented out.

I agree with this. I believe it is the correct answer.

antrobus

Forgiving me for asking what might be a stupid question, but I always understood that a lease was a contract entered into between a lessee and a lessor, and that whilst lessee might be able to assign the benefit of a lease to a third party (i.e. sell it), the contract remained as is. So surely the request to amend the lease should be directed to the lessor i.e. the freeholder? I can understand why the vendor has put the question to the "company representing the owners of the flats in the block", but presumably the church still owns the freehold?

Yorkie1

antrobus wrote: »

Forgiving me for asking what might be a stupid question, but I always understood that a lease was a contract entered into between a lessee and a lessor, and that whilst lessee might be able to assign the benefit of a lease to a third party (i.e. sell it), the contract remained as is. So surely the request to amend the lease should be directed to the lessor i.e. the freeholder? I can understand why the vendor has put the question to the "company representing the owners of the flats in the block", but presumably the church still owns the freehold?

You'd have to look at the actual terms of the main / head lease but yes, that would seem to be a reasonable assumption from what has been posted. Assuming that the company doesn't also represent the freeholders, I'd have thought that it is the freeholder's / head lessor's responsibility to decide what to do.