Lease: No Subletting

henraa

Hi All,
Hope someone can help me, as I'm concerned my solicitor is not being 100% straight with me and looking to get a bit of advice:

Context:
I found, offered, haggled, accepted offer on a flat in London. The flat is 1 of 13 and is share of freehold, there is however a lease between the 13 flats, written in the 1930's (when the tenants purchased the freehold from the freeholder at the time) which contains covenants and articles which must be observed during ownership. There is a residents association which

There are two articles in the lease which I deem to be showstoppers (bear in mind this is my writing not the olde english of the lease!) -
1. The property cannot be sublet in its entirety unless the sublettors sign up and become members of the residents association.
2. The owner cannot sublet any part of the flat at any time. E.g. cannot rent out a room, or rent out the garage.

Being in London, renting out a room would be pretty necessary financially for me.
My solicitor has stated that "these types of clauses are pretty standard in most leases" which I find really hard to believe.

I'm 30, from my perspective, I think these clauses are too limiting to my flexibility for the next 35 years.

I suppose my question is, is my solicitor right? Are these clauses common? My friends with flats seem shocked that these clauses are there.

Thank you for your thoughts in advance.
Henry

Newtown

I am currently in the process of buying a flat with a similar clause. (I would have thought you can have a lodger)

We are paying the full asking price. being told the same that its very common.(my mortgage adviser has said he never had one like this before)

You can look at it in 2 ways.

Positive: The people who will be living will be all home owners and will look after the property and not constant rotation of tenants. (Some flats lose value because of bad tenants in area etc)

Negative: You cannot rent it in future if you need to move. You will have to sell the property.

We applied for the mortgage and just due to this clause Nationwide down valued the property by 5.8% .

We like the property but do not want to pay over the odds but problem is London and Bournemouth property market is very very quick. you snooze you loose.

Newtown

henraa wrote: »

Hi All,
Hope someone can help me, as I'm concerned my solicitor is not being 100% straight with me and looking to get a bit of advice:

Context:
I found, offered, haggled, accepted offer on a flat in London. The flat is 1 of 13 and is share of freehold, there is however a lease between the 13 flats, written in the 1930's (when the tenants purchased the freehold from the freeholder at the time) which contains covenants and articles which must be observed during ownership. There is a residents association which

There are two articles in the lease which I deem to be showstoppers (bear in mind this is my writing not the olde english of the lease!) -
1. The property cannot be sublet in its entirety unless the sublettors sign up and become members of the residents association.
2. The owner cannot sublet any part of the flat at any time. E.g. cannot rent out a room, or rent out the garage.

Being in London, renting out a room would be pretty necessary financially for me.
My solicitor has stated that "these types of clauses are pretty standard in most leases" which I find really hard to believe.

I'm 30, from my perspective, I think these clauses are too limiting to my flexibility for the next 35 years.

I suppose my question is, is my solicitor right? Are these clauses common? My friends with flats seem shocked that these clauses are there.

Thank you for your thoughts in advance.
Henry

How much you haggled ? Much discount in % terms ?

Our situation is same: Share of freehold with no subletting clause.

G_M

A lodgeer in a room is not subletting. The lodger is an 'Excluded Occuper' not a 'tenant'.