Buying & renting a room

LilBec

Ok this is a bit of a tricky one... I am in the final stages of buying a property. Not yet exchanged contracts but should be doing so on friday as things stand.
Now I've had a meeting with my solicitor today, who has informed me of a clause in the agreement with the management company that only people named on the mortgage can live in the property.
This isnt an immediate problem, as I am planning on living alone initially. BUT, I had considered renting out the spare room later down the line when a particular friend returns from a year abroad. There is also the possibility that I may want my partner to move in, again later down the line, but this clause rules that out entirely.
So my question is, is this unusual or does it apply to all apartment blocks? And second, if I chose to ignore this and take my chances what would the likely consequences be?
I think the sensible thing if I'm not sure is just to pull out now and look elsewhere, but obviously i've invested quite a lot of money to get to this stage, and i do LOVE the apartment. But the thought of living there alone forever, or being forced to sell if I dont want to live alone does make it seem like a silly idea to go ahead. I always thought if u bought a property you had more freedom/flexibility but this doesnt seem to be the case...

jamie11

It would make it a lot easier if you could post the clause exactly as it is written, it probably does not mean anything like you think it does.

Most leases have a clause that says you cannot let a part of the place but that does not stop you letting the premises as a whole. It would also be unreasonable to say you are not allowed to let your spare bedroom to a lodger as well.

LilBec

This is my solicitor's translation of the condition, she is going to email me the full (100 or so page!) document tomorrow so it may seem more reasonable when I read it myself. Although I do tend to trust her view and if she says it is the case it probably is. But when I receive the document I will post the clause up. She has told me I could let the entire place with a buy to let mortgage, but cannot take a lodger if I stay there myself! And apparently this would also cover family members or partner too! Bizarre! You're right though, I probably do need to re-read it and clarify, there was a lot to take in today...

Errata

If that's what it says, it's a daft clause which would prevent your future spouse or children living there.

The_Palmist

It's a fairly standard clause. Your property is partially owned by the bank so they are interested in knowing who is living there and if the property is being used for anything other than residence.

One of the main reasons if house insurance, if you don't inform the insurers about extra person living, it could void your insurance.

Unless its something else, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You will have to let the bank and house insurance company know when your partner moves in. They should be ok with it.

Getting a lodger can cause complications but its quite common so I doubt you will encounter any issues.

The_Palmist

LilBec wrote: »

Now I've had a meeting with my solicitor today, who has informed me of a clause in the agreement with the management company that only people named on the mortgage can live in the property.

Doesn't make sense, as I said before you just need to inform the bank who will living there.

You sure you did not misunderstood.

Post the clause when you get it.

Werdnal

The_Palmist wrote: »

Doesn't make sense, as I said before you just need to inform the bank who will living there.

You sure you did not misunderstood.

Post the clause when you get it.

I think OP is saying his Lease states only the mortgage holder is allowed to live there. Informing the bank will not change the clause in the lease issued by his management company/freeholder!

However, I do agree that it is a strange clause, as this effectively means you cannot have relatives, spouse or children living with you. But, it is quite feasible that the lease forbids letting of the property.

JJames69

The_Palmist wrote: »

It's a fairly standard clause. Your property is partially owned by the bank so they are interested in knowing who is living there and if the property is being used for anything other than residence.

One of the main reasons if house insurance, if you don't inform the insurers about extra person living, it could void your insurance.

Unless its something else, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You will have to let the bank and house insurance company know when your partner moves in. They should be ok with it.

Getting a lodger can cause complications but its quite common so I doubt you will encounter any issues.

This is not to do with the bank, it's the management company that look after the block who must own the freehold aswell as they are the person/company the OP is leasing the apatment from. As long as there are no looks on doors then the lender won't be bothered (i.e. looking like it is used for commercial purposes).

I'm suprised the management company would be bothered. Have you tried calling them directly to discuss the clause?

G_M

LilBec wrote: »

....my solicitor today, who has informed me of a clause in the agreement with the management company that only people named on the mortgage can live in the property.

You have almost certainly either misunderstood your solicitor, or been misinformed by your solicitor.
Many people buy properties without a mortgage. This clause would therefore mean that NO ONE can live there!

More likely it refers to people named on the deeds. But the fact that there is a misunderstanding in this aspect of the clause makes me wonder what other misunderstanding there might be.

Until we know exactly what this clause says it is pointless trying to interpret.