Underlet Covenant

Comms69

houman1979 wrote: »

No as my conveyancor said positively that you dont need a permission.

So you think also that no permission is required?

Why not ask anyway, just to be on the safe side?


I think you do need it, that clause says that quite clearly. What it doesn't say is the consequences of not getting it.

houman1979

Nothing said about any consequence. So based on that if I ask it now, given that I've already let the property, I wont face big issues and may just need to pay a fee?

houman1979

Also I found it:
"there shall be any breach non-observance or non-performance of any covenant on the part of the tenant herein contained"
if the above happened the landlord has a right to re-enter to the property. Is it really that easy to enforce?

houman1979

Also, I obtained a buy to let mortgage on the property. Then, did the lender informed the freeholder about the mortgage? In that case, they knew it that I bought it for the purpose of letting to other people.

da_rule

The lender wouldn't have informed the freeholder. Your conveyancer should have followed the assignment and charge provisions in the lease. No charge notice I have seen specifies whether the mortgage is a buy-to-let or standard occupation mortgage.

Also, the lease seems fairly clear that the onus is on you to ask for permission, not your lender.

In terms of enforcement you'll need to expand on that, as some leases will allow for the lease to be determined (terminated) on a breach by peaceful re-entry. Obviously you can get an order to prevent this.

00ec25

you have bog standard wording about needing permission

it is bog standard because it is mainly put in leases to enable someone to charge a fee for giving that permission

however, it is also put in a lease to cover the rather far fetched scenario where it actually has to be enforced and action taken against you

but mainly it is to enable a fee to be charged....

houman1979

So, because I did not get a permission to let (which I did because of my conveyancor said it is not necessary and I am not expert in this field) they can take the flat?? Is it a normal practice and can be easily enforced?

Slithery

Did your solicitor actually tell you that you didn't need permission to let, or did they just say that you could let?

mchale

Slithery wrote: »

Did your solicitor actually tell you that you didn't need permission to let, or did they just say that you could let?

Think that part of the problem is OP used a conveyancer, not a solicitor.

eddddy

houman1979 wrote: »

So, because I did not get a permission to let (which I did because of my conveyancor said it is not necessary and I am not expert in this field) they can take the flat?? Is it a normal practice and can be easily enforced?

You just need to ask your freeholder for consent to let, and it will probably be sorted quickly and easily.