Underletting clause in lease

torridonscot

Apologies for starting a new thread but this is unrelated to the roof situation.

Just got a copy of the lease and frustratingly my solicitor hasn't yet contacted me to confirm what the wording says about being able to let the flat in the future. Can someone knowledgeable confirm what I believe to be lack of restrictions on letting the flat out?

This is the exact wording:

-do not assign charge underlet or part with the possession of part only of the flat (as opposed to the whole)

-not assign or part with the possession of the whole of the flat without first obtaining from the assignee a covenant directly with the lessor to pay the rent and the service charge contribution referred to in this lease

-within 21 days after any permitted assignment charge or underletting shall have been executed or after the devolution of the said term produce the disposition or evidence of the devolution to the Lessor or to its Solicitors for registration to whom a fee f £10 shall be paid for each such registration provided that this sub clause shall not apply to underlettings for less than 3 years.


Thank you!

propertyman

It means
1 you cannot rent out part
2 that you can rent out the whole if

the renting tenant enters into a deed of covenant to perform the same clauses that are in your lease ( except payment of rent and service charge and most repair) with the lessor ( the person who granted your lease to you).

What that does is ensure that the other covenants such as those about noise nusiance etc are identical.

An established landlord will have a ready made version and you should ensure that your tenancy document does not conflict in any way and it may require altering.

AlexMac

Yeah- no problem, I'd say.

These conditions seem reasonable, and are there to protect other leaseholders from antisocial sub-tenants if you do decide to let the flat, (or to protect you if your neighbours do, as I assume their leases will all say the same). They are less onerous than the conditions in my last two leasehold purchases; one of these prohibited short-term 'holiday lets' of less than 6-months, and the other demanded an expensive and complex legal process if I chose to sub-let for more than 12 months

Yorkie1

I have read on here that service charges can't be passed on to tenants by leasehold owners. Is that universally the case and, if so, does the second element of that document breach the rules?

olly300

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I have read on here that service charges can't be passed on to tenants by leasehold owners. Is that universally the case

Yes.

The lease is between the leaseholder and the freeholder, not the tenant and the freeholder.

Yorkie1 wrote: »

and, if so, does the second element of that document breach the rules?

Nope.

If a clause in a contract breaches the law than the law overrides it.

Remember laws change but most leases last for about 100 years.

evuliuxb

seems like standard lease clause, we owe a leasehold flat and it has the same clause:) service charge will have to be paid by you, and you will have to get a permission from the freeholder to let your flat if you plan to do so.

propertyman

olly300 wrote: »

Yes.

No that's wrong Olly.

The undertenant cannot be made to pay the SC directly the landlord, except as a third party debtor order where rent is paid over them, however there is nothing to prevent the tenancy contain an amount for rent and services.

It is however generally restricted to regular services such as cleaning caretkeing electricity etc, but not repairs and maintenance or plant servicing/ replacement.

Overall it is still subject to market limits of how much a tenant will pay. Whether it's £800 rent inc, or £500 R and £300 SC, they wont want to pay more than £800.

These covenants are therefore in effect limited to the covenants that can be enforced such as nuisance etc.