Wording in lease question

Torontofemale5

What type of flooring is permitted? (excluding in the kitchen and bathroom)

I would very much appreciate your opinions!

"the lessee shall keep the Premises including the halls passages thereof substantially covered with carpets except that in the kitchen and bathroom all over cork or rubber covering or other suitable material for avoiding the transmission of noise may be used instead of carpets"

(this is the EXACT wording and punctuation)
Thank you!!!

Cornucopia

Carpet, or another floor covering designed to suppress noise.

i.e. Not laminate flooring with cheap underlay.

Imelda

Fitted carpet.

It is standard wording in lots of leases and is due to sound proofing. If there is wooden/ laminate in the flat it is in breach of the lease unless (written) permission has been given by the landlord.

G_M

Torontofemale5 wrote: »

What type of flooring is permitted? (excluding in the kitchen and bathroom)

Errrrr.... "substantially covered with carpet".

What part is hard to understand?

AlexMac

Yeah, it's standard wording in almost every lease I've ever seen or flat I've ever owned, and a reasonable aspiration to reduce noise transmission to the flat below; especially in conversions with suspended floors which do clatter a bit if you tap-dance on bare timbers!

But we live in the real world, and I've never heard of a freeholder even asking what you've got on your floors, let alone trying to enforce against breach of lease terms (ultimately, by spending 5h1t loads of their money on lawyers)?

So apply common sense; put laminate or vinyl down in the kitchen and bathroom; but maybe go for carpets (or at least rugs over laminate) in other rooms. And ask the people downstairs in for tea and cake (sorry to steal your lines G_M) after a few months and ask if whatever you get up to on the rug or floor disturbs them? (the mind boggles)

But unless you are allergic to dust mites, carpet's not a bad idea; an it might even lessen the transmission of noise from their place when they're having a party any you're trying to kip?

G_M

AlexMac wrote: »

....
But we live in the real world, and I've never heard of a freeholder even asking what you've got on your floors, let alone trying to enforce against breach of lease terms

In the 'real world', it will depend if the occupant of the flat below complains.

If he does, the freeholder might then check the floor covering and enforce the lease.

If no one complains, then no one will check, and no one will know, or care.

Torontofemale5

Thanks for your replies. The problem is that we have bamboo laminate (with underfloor heating mats and insulation) and we are selling our flat. The buyer's solicitor has raised it as a question with the management company who are now saying that (essentially because we've been formally snitched on) they will not permit a sale because we are in breach of the lease, unless we put carpets in (which benefits no one). When we bought the flat 10 years ago it had cheap laminate in it which we replaced. We have never ever had a complaint and my argument was that we have something that would be classed as another "suitable material for avoiding the transmission of noise" but they are saying that refers to the kitchen and bathroom. Such an annoying and ridiculous situation to find ourselves in.

eddddy

AlexMac wrote: »

But we live in the real world, and I've never heard of a freeholder even asking what you've got on your floors, let alone trying to enforce against breach of lease terms (ultimately, by spending 5h1t loads of their money on lawyers)?

That's misleading for a couple of reasons...

Most leases have 'mutual enforceability clauses'. So any leaseholder (such as the downstairs neighbour) can complain to the freeholder, and insist that the freeholder enforces the 'carpet covenant' (and take legal action against the freeholder, if the freeholder refuses to do anything).


Also, the shed loads of money that a freeholder spends on lawyers will be recharged to the leaseholders. So the freeholder has nothing to lose by instructing lawyers.

bowlhead99

Torontofemale5 wrote: »

my argument was that we have something that would be classed as another "suitable material for avoiding the transmission of noise" but they are saying that refers to the kitchen and bathroom. Such an annoying and ridiculous situation to find ourselves in.

It does quite clearly say that your rooms have to be substantially covered in carpet EXCEPT that in the kitchen and bathroom you may use all over coverings of cork or rubber or other suitable material (recognising that carpet might not be appropriate for kitchen but still wanting to block noise)

Not that it will make you feel better but the time to raise this was when you were buying it a decade ago because then you could say the property they were selling was in breach of its lease and would need ££ spending on it to make it compliant. That was your bargaining chip to get the previous sellers to buy you new carpet or drop the price to help you buy some, because they would inevitably recognise they would have difficulty selling it to anyone else without dropping the price once freeholder was informed.

Unfortunately you didn't do that, so now that problem you could have created for someone else, is now a problem someone else has created for you... And it will cost you - rather than the previous owner - to sort it.

The problem with saying it will benefit no-one is that's not guaranteed to be the case. If at some point down the line your buyers later want to walk around in stillettos and the other people in the block want to work nights and be insulated from noise of people clattering around on wood, there's a problem which will cost them money to fix.

You could say to the buyers that you're happy to go and buy some second hand rugs to tack down as "floor coverings" to meet a bare minimum standard to satisfy the freeholder, but you expect them to want something nicer so as a compromise how about you give them a contribution towards buying some carpets of their own choice by giving them a discount on the price. Couple of grand, will cost you a bit less than that net if you have percentage-based estate agent fees and will save them a bit more because less stamp duty to pay.

Obviously no point buying them brand new carpet of your own choice and budget preference that they then want to immediately replace.

Shame someone alerted the freeholder really, but now it's happened it's just a matter of how you split the cost of satisfying the freeholder between the person who would like to live in the flat and the person who would like to be able to sell it. If they don't like your offer and look elsewhere, you will still be the person who would like to be able to sell it and you may not get as good an offer when you remarket it (plus hassle of that).

Imelda

Also, I disagree that Landlords / managing agents do not check up.

I know of a few who upon receiving a request for replies to standard enquiries look on rightmove to check for any breaches - they know the seller will not want any hold up and will pay out their horrendous fee (£750 plus VAT is not unusual) for them to grant retrospective permission.

Cakeguts

You want to sell the flat? So take up whatever you put down on the floors and replace with carpet. If you are going to be selling you don't have to live with the carpet.