Under-leasing Flat

FussyPedant

Hi,

My son-in-law is moving to Australia for work for 12 or 18 months and wants to under-lease the flat he bought recently.
The lease states he must gain permission from the land lord in order to under-lease, however the builders he bought the flat from (who he was dealing with) are now insolvent and not responding to emails.

The Freehold is held by Company A, the flats were built by Company B (now insolvent), the Property Management Company (PMC) is Company C and the invoice for the property management is dealt with by Company D; however all of these companies are owned by the same people (Mr and Mr Bloggs - not their real names!).

Who does he deal with regarding getting permission to under-lease? Company A, C or D?

Also we can't find any staff to email, we only have the name of Mr and Mr Bloggs with their registered addresses. (There is a Company E with a website, email and phone number at the same address as Company A, C and D but they only seem to share the same address.)

Also he want to gather as much information as possible before he goes to his solicitor, is there anything specific he needs?

(I've been at this all day and feel like I'm going mad so please ask for clarification or more information!!)

AnotherJoe

I suggest your SIL doesn't want to be underleasing, which implies a long term arrangement, he just wants to let out the property.

So, is there anything in the lease about letting out the property as opposed to underleasing it ?

If there is a mortgage the more common case is he will require consent to let from them.

davidmcn

FussyPedant wrote: »

The lease states he must gain permission from the land lord in order to under-lease, however the builders he bought the flat from (who he was dealing with) are now insolvent and not responding to emails.

The Freehold is held by Company A, the flats were built by Company B (now insolvent)

Landlord = freeholders. So Company A. Not sure why he would be corresponding with Company B.

eddddy

As davidmcn says, the freeholder will be the landlord.

The service charge demands that your SiL receives should show the name and address of the landlord/freeholder. (Because if they didn't include it, payment of the service charge couldn't be enforced.)

So contact the name/address shown on those demands, explaining that you want consent to sub-let, and ask them what information (and what fee) they require in order to give consent.

AnotherJoe

eddddy wrote: »

As davidmcn says, the freeholder will be the landlord.

The service charge demands that your SiL receives should show the name and address of the landlord/freeholder. (Because if they didn't include it, payment of the service charge couldn't be enforced.)

So contact the name/address shown on those demands, explaining that you want consent to sub-let, and ask them what information (and what fee) they require in order to give consent.

Except if the lease doesn't mention sub- letting and only sub (under) leasing he doesn't need to ask permission from anyone except the mortgage company.

FussyPedant

davidmcn wrote: »

Landlord = freeholders. So Company A. Not sure why he would be corresponding with Company B.

(Sorry, yesterday was a long day - I missed some stuff out!!)
1) He was told the landlord had become bankrupt and he was panicking (turns out it was the builder)
2) He only dealt with one person at Company B who also acted on behalf Company D who has since resigned.
However it may be he only has to contact his mortgage company.

FussyPedant

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I suggest your SIL doesn't want to be underleasing, which implies a long term arrangement, he just wants to let out the property.

So, is there anything in the lease about letting out the property as opposed to underleasing it ?

If there is a mortgage the more common case is he will require consent to let from them.

He has sent me the section of his lease that says "Assignment and Underletting" (no mention of subletting). I'll double check with him. Thanks

FussyPedant

Thanks guys!

eddddy

I think that trying to propose different legal definitions of sublet vs underlet vs sublease vs underlease is a bit of a red herring.

The text of the lease should make it clear what is allowed, what is not allowed and what requires consent.


If the lease says your SiL needs consent, there's a risk if he goes ahead without getting the consent - for example, if he signs a 12 month AST.

The freehold is likely to be sold to a new owner - probably in less than 12 months. If that new owner has a valid reason not to grant consent, your SiL will be stuck.

He will be in breach of his lease, but unable to evict his tenant.

Your SiL could ask the freeholder's administrator for consent. I think they would have the legal power to grant it, but might shy away from doing so.

G_M

FussyPedant wrote: »

(Sorry, yesterday was a long day - I missed some stuff out!!)
1) He was told the landlord had become bankrupt and he was panicking (turns out it was the builder)
2) He only dealt with one person at Company B who also acted on behalf Company D who has since resigned.
However it may be he only has to contact his mortgage company.

Forget the builder (B), he's irrelevant.

Seems like A is the freeholder who needs to grant consent.
If A has employed a management company (C) to act on his behalf, then (C) can grant consent.

But I'd address the letter to A and send a copy to C.

D seems strange if they are sending invoices for C, but if in doubt, cc them too!.

FussyPedant

eddddy wrote: »

If the lease says your SiL needs consent, there's a risk if he goes ahead without getting the consent - for example, if he signs a 12 month AST.

Sorry, what is AST?

eddddy wrote: »

The freehold is likely to be sold to a new owner - probably in less than 12 months. If that new owner has a valid reason not to grant consent, your SiL will be stuck.

Why will the Freehold be sold? The building company (B) is insolvent not the freehold company (A) (or is it to do with them all being the same people - Mr and Mr Bloggs?)