Short term lets - occupants causing disturbance to other leaseholders

pg1981

PasturesNew - the point is the flat cannot be used for a let of less than 90 days

a) the lease forbids it
b) Westminster council forbid it

Forum wont let me post links but if you google "Westminster council short lets" it will bring up a document that sets all this out - they will investigate and potentially levy fines up to £20k

lvm

Guest101 wrote: »

Did i say that, or did i actually say they'll be refunded the people they kick out.

no it's not ok, but you're running a business, so dont take it personally.

You said on at least 3 occasions that evicting holiday let tenant was illegal - my post was to correct you as this was incorrect.

As for refunding them - absolutely not. T&Cs would allow otherwise and covered in cancellation policy.

Every right to take it personally - it's mine/family's personal property. Nevertheless, situations always handled professionally.

Not going to argue about the rules of holiday letting though - doesnt help OPs situation.

pg1981

I assume all the people posting about laws / rules relating to holiday lets are coming from a position where the property in question is an actual holiday let and has the proper planning permission, documentation, fire safety etc

This flat does not have any of that (as I have already said), so its a different question. Instinctively, I think Dell12's comments are sensible. I would appreciate further input on the specific points I raised in my original post, in particular if anyone is based in Westminster and has involved the council in disputes of this nature

Strapped

The answer seems to be obvious from the OP - inform the council, if they actively enforce, then job done.

I'd also write informing the owner that they are breaking the terms of their lease. I don't know what sanctions are available in such a situation though.

BTW - I used to work for a City firm that rented a few Westminster flats which were then available for employees to stay in (typically people coming from overseas for a week or two) so if owner B let to one of these, you may still find that you have short-term "guests" in there, which wouldn't break the lease terms. Probably less troublesome though.

propertyman

pg1981 wrote: »

I assume all the people posting about laws / rules relating to holiday lets are coming from a position where the property in question is an actual holiday let and has the proper planning permission, documentation, fire safety etc

This flat does not have any of that (as I have already said), so its a different question. Instinctively, I think Dell12's comments are sensible. I would appreciate further input on the specific points I raised in my original post, in particular if anyone is based in Westminster and has involved the council in disputes of this nature

Well in anther forum you have been told " just contact Westminster" and let them deal with it by someone who has and is doing just that and has been for many years.

If that is for some reason unsuccessful then you can by all means go down the expensive route of ending a letter before action stating the breach and requiring action to remedy it, offering mediation and after that proceeding to the first tier tribunal to see if they will determine the breach and then ask the County Court to forfeit the laase.

Allow between £3000 and £10000 per flat in legal fees.

Guest101

lvm wrote: »

You said on at least 3 occasions that evicting holiday let tenant was illegal - my post was to correct you as this was incorrect.

As for refunding them - absolutely not. T&Cs would allow otherwise and covered in cancellation policy.

Every right to take it personally - it's mine/family's personal property. Nevertheless, situations always handled professionally.

Not going to argue about the rules of holiday letting though - doesnt help OPs situation.

No it doesn't, but your running a business, and not being funny, but running it badly.

Anyway good luck to you.

The situation i was referring to, was clearly illegal.

The Owner (not the agent) may terminate the contract (refunding appropriate amount), however he/she cannot physically remove them, nor can the police, and a court order is required.

So a lesson for others.

dell12

Surprisingly the process of forfeiture isn't actually that expensive. There's a good guide here:

http://www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/faq.asp?item=233

I've never taken it all the way, but I have written to a mortgage company in regards to unpaid service charges. They paid up and added it on to the mortgage.

It will take alot of effort and determination on your part though. It's not quick or easy. For me if the lease strictly forbids short term lets then I'd enforce it, rather than try to mitigate it (sound proofing etc). The lease is designed exactly for this situation so make sure you use it. 99/100 a strict letter will do however.

lvm

Guest101 wrote: »

No it doesn't, but your running a business, and not being funny, but running it badly.

Completely uncalled for.

On the basis I said we threw a bunch of 15 people out due to CRIMINAL DAMAGE (and more) and didn't compensate for this, I am running a business badly? You're clearly deluded.

Think before you type.