Licence to alter?

Jonners0910

Could someone let me know when a licence to alter might be appropriate? My lease says only that written permission is required when doing alterations to the flat but now my landlord is saying that he will only grant retrospective permission with a license to alter. Our contention is firstly that of the two changes to the flat one was made to improve security (new patio door) and the other was made in 2004, 3 owners ago, and not raised by the landlord when we bought the house, but somehow brought up now! Feeling pretty aggrieved by this last one! Solicitor reckons we only need writer, landlord insisting on licence to alter.

Anyone got any thoughts on how to just get this one through? Got a buyer on the hook, waiting to exchange...... for now anyway!

eddddy

"Written Permission" and "Licence to Alter" usually mean the same thing - has somebody suggested they don't in your case?

Regarding the patio doors. If the lease says that you need permission for alterations, "improving security" isn't really a valid excuse for not getting it.

Regarding the 2004 alterations. Was the freeholder aware of the alterations when you bought the house? If the freeholder has only just found out, that may be why they're raising the issue now.

Jonners0910

Hi, so the landlord knew about the changes as he lived above them for 14 years and 3 other people have moved through our flat since. This is why we are feeling aggrieved as it's only now he's seemingly decided that it needs the formality of a license to alter rather than just retrospective permission in writing which my solicitor says should suffice