Breach of leasehold terms - babies

Peater

Hi all,

I own a leasehold on a flat in a lovely, quiet, small complex on the edge of town.

There is a couple above me who are renting the flat, the lady has a prounounced 'bump' indicating a child-on-the-way.

Now, i don't know how to approach this without sounding like a complete !!!!!, but......

The terms of the lease stipulate that no-one under the age of 18 must reside in the properties as it is an 'exclusive' development, mainly lived in by the elderly. This was particually attractive when buying the property.

Also, sound travels remarkably easily in the building, but its something i have gotten used to. However, the thought of a screaming baby at all hours send shivers down my spine.

This is where it gets a bit merky - I know the leaseholder and the tenants are his Son and daughter-in-law.

What can i realisticaly do without making enemies? The other adjacent flat is also lived in by a tenant, the leaseholder lives miles away so i expect little support from them.

What to do?

Cissi

Peater wrote: »

What can i realisticaly do without making enemies?

Pretty certainly nothing (except move elsewhere)!?! What were you envisaging - asking the leasholder (the grandfather-to-be) to evict his family and still remain on friendly terms with him???

Legally I'm no expert but I can't see how such a clause would be enforceable, not if people of normal child-bearing age are allowed to live there. Normally the cut-off point is much higher than 18, ie 55 or more, presumably precisely for this reason.

Not sure what you expect anyone to do - or is this a wind-up?

Werdnal

Whilst the baby is still a "bump" they are not breaching anything! Have you considered they might move out before baby arrives?

If they don't, address the situation then. Why worry yourself about something that hasn't actually happened yet?

G_M

The way to address this is

a) when the lease has been breached - which so far it has not and
b) via the freeholder or their appointed managment company.

Any tenancy agreement granted by a leaseholder should reflect the lease. So if the lease prohibits under 18s, or pets, or whateever, then the tenancy should also.

Unfortunately it will come down to how proactive the feeholder/mgmt co is in enforcing the terms of the lease against the leaeholder, who in turn has to ensure that his tenants comply.

If the tenancy agreement dows NOT reflect the lease's erms, then the landlord/leaseholder can only issue a S21, wait till the tenancy's fixed term expires and then start possession procedings.

propertyman

I assume that this is a long leasehold property and if there is an age restriction in occupation then the under letting to someone outside that age restriction is more than likely a breach in itself, bump or no bump.

That said when dealing with a restriction for no "under 18's" that is simply unenforceable. All you can rely on is a nuisance clause and ask the Managers to ensure that the tenancy is not renewed, but they have little or no basis to do so.

propertyman

G_M wrote: »

Any tenancy agreement granted by a leaseholder should reflect the lease. So if the lease prohibits under 18s, or pets, or whatever, then the tenancy should also.

Yes that's right however the clause itself but be legal and lawful, pets can be restricted but there is no presumption against them unless they are excluded, and you most certainly cannot exclude new borns!

While the precedent on this are old, in current terms any such contract would be a breach of the right to family life.

Peater

Thanks for your replies.

Just had a read of the lease, it's not quite as clear as i was lead to believe.

'No children nor animals shall reside on the demised premises and such only so long as they shall not be a nuisance or annoyance to the owners or occupiers of the adjoining premises. The Management have the power to decide in respect thereof.'

Considering the leaseholder in question is a Director of the Management company, i don't see any muscles being flexed....

I can only hope that they are looking for somewhere else. These are smallish 1-bed properties, hardly ideal locations to raise a child.

richardw

Anything can happen between now and when the baby is likely to arrive. You're perceiving a problem that may not arise.

Peater

True, i just like to be prepared....(or permanently beset by worry)

propertyman

Peater wrote: »

Just had a read of the lease, it's not quite as clear as i was lead to believe.

'No children nor animals shall reside on the demised premises and such only so long as they shall not be a nuisance or annoyance to the owners or occupiers of the adjoining premises. The Management have the power to decide in respect thereof.'

The no children bit is just laughable.

If you were given advice that this was enforceable, one word - sue.

richardw

Do you think they may be in a position financially to move to somewhere bigger? If they are it is highly likely that they will do.