Translation of legalese please!

amblondon

Agree with Yorkie1 and in particular what he says in terms of ability to and desirability of accepting the amendment. Not to be done lightly, if at all.

G_M

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.

Please take on board I am not a lawyer, however, I think you are mistaken.

"or otherwise transfer the whole of the property" does not apply to renting (I think!) since ownership of the lease is not transferred where the leaseholder rents out. Leaseholder remains leaseholder.

However, if I am wrong, it would still not be surprising - many leases require the freeholder's permission for a rental to take place, hence the frequent advice on this forum to new landlords to ensure they have their mortgage lender and leaseholder's permission.

G_M

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?

Not stupid at all!

Only the freeholder can agree an amendment to the lease. It appears the OP's mother

is secretary / a director for the company representing the owners of the flats in the block.

ie the leaseholders. So the company would have no power to approve such a change.

It is unlikely the freeholder would, or should, amend the lease for one flat only. It would be all or nothing - probobly nothing.

sonastin

G_M wrote: »

Please take on board I am not a lawyer, however, I think you are mistaken.

"or otherwise transfer the whole of the property" does not apply to renting (I think!) since ownership of the lease is not transferred where the leaseholder rents out. Leaseholder remains leaseholder.

However, if I am wrong, it would still not be surprising - many leases require the freeholder's permission for a rental to take place, hence the frequent advice on this forum to new landlords to ensure they have their mortgage lender and leaseholder's permission.

I believe the references to "underlease" are what prevents the leaseholder renting out the property i.e. you cannot create another tier of lease below this one.

sonastin

If the owners of the flats all own a share of the freehold, it is probably the company who have the power to amend the lease. If there is a separate freeholder and the company is merely a management company, the purchaser's query needs to be re-directed to the freeholder.

Jomo

Contact:
http://www.lease-advice.org/

G_M

sonastin wrote: »

I believe the references to "underlease" are what prevents the leaseholder renting out the property i.e. you cannot create another tier of lease below this one.

Agreed!...

lynneinjapan

Thanks all. I believe that in fact all three of the flats either are currently rented out or have been in the past, so maybe all the flat owners are in breach of the lease without realising it! Good point about only the freeholder being able to approve a change to the lease - that is still the church, so I guess the best thing would be to refer the matter to them.

(I did think that the bit about the mortgage was just saying "This doesn't apply to taking out a mortgage on the property - you can still do that" so it appears I was correct on that bit at least!)

Yorkie1

sonastin wrote: »

I believe the references to "underlease" are what prevents the leaseholder renting out the property i.e. you cannot create another tier of lease below this one.

Indeed, that is the point I was making. It specifically says " ... not to underlease ... " without the consent of the lessor.

timmyt

I agree with GMs first interpretation and his second realisation that the reference to underlease potentially stops any tenancy - but not sonastin for thinking it stops selling or tenancies outright. It doesn't, sales are fine and the Landlord can give consent to a tenancy.

OP what do we know about the history of tenancies? If there have been some, then there is no good reason to delete the clause. Landlord can give consent.



Lawyers use the language they do in documents because laws are both old, and so is therefore the language, but it is also 'bullet proof' language that you would be glad exists if you are up against a hot shot lawyer trying to interpret it another way. The language lawyers use is unambiguous court approved 'non-double meaning'. Now that clears that unfair critique up