Underlet Covenant

houman1979

Yes he did and he still believes that I don need that and all I needed to do was signing a deed of covenant and nothing else and also they charged me for that covenant.

Slithery

What is the exact wording of this 'covenant' that you signed?

Unless it was also agreed to by the freeholder I can't see how it could over-ride the lease.

houman1979

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?

they said I dont need a permission to let

houman1979

Actually, my main question was what would be most probable scenario if I needed to get the permission and it seems the most probable case would be payment of a fee to get the permission.

I still dont know if it is that easy for the to re-enter just because of this

00ec25

houman1979 wrote: »

I still dont know if it is that easy for the to re-enter just because of this

stop trying to make a mountain out of a pimple

are any other flats in your block already let? yes/no

the objective is to collect a fee, hence the wording not unreasonably withheld. If your property was in a block whose owner-occupiers did not want to mix with "tenants":eek: , your lease wording would not be the generic (give us some money) clause. You may even find "they" don't ask for a fee anyway, and the whole thing is merely a rubber stamping paper chase.

that said, your conveyancer was rubbish, as such a clause is pretty common in flat leases.