Vendor does not have Landlord's consent for alterations

eddddy

onix22 wrote: »

The Lease states 'No alterations wothout consent'.

In that case, the law says that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

(So almost certainly, the worst case scenario would be that you have to pay a fee for retrospective consent).

onix22 wrote: »

However, the vendor declared the stud wall was erected 8 years ago. Does the 4 year rule apply here? Would the alteration become lawful after this period? Shall we ask for a certificate of lawfulness, do you think it would help?

4 year rule, certificate of lawfulness etc all relate to planning consent. This isn't a planning consent issue, you don't need planning consent for an internal wall, so none of that is relevant.

This is a 'breach of lease covenant issue'. There is no 4 year rule.

onix22 wrote: »

If we want to make any alterations in the future, will the indemnity insurance become invalid? What will be the consequences for us?

If you want to make alterations, get written consent from the landlord (and keep it in a safe place!). Then there will be no consequences.

onix22

eddddy wrote: »

In that case, the law says that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

(So almost certainly, the worst case scenario would be that you have to pay a fee for retrospective consent).



4 year rule, certificate of lawfulness etc all relate to planning consent. This isn't a planning consent issue, you don't need planning consent for an internal wall, so none of that is relevant.

This is a 'breach of lease covenant issue'. There is no 4 year rule.



If you want to make alterations, get written consent from the landlord (and keep it in a safe place!). Then there will be no consequences.

Would you reckon the indemnity insurance would be enough then? Would we have any problems in a future sale even if we have indemnity insurance and the flat remains unaltered by us?

Sorry to bother, but we are FTB and don't have any experience when it comes to properties.

davidmcn

onix22 wrote: »

Would you reckon the indemnity insurance would be enough then? Would we have any problems in a future sale even if we have indemnity insurance and the flat remains unaltered by us?

Like I said, yes it should be sufficient. Your solicitor should be advising you on this - it's what you're paying them for. Though I take it they are suggesting it as a solution because they think it's one which ought to be acceptable to you.

AnotherJoe

onix22 wrote: »

No, they are not aware. Do we need too inform them?

Maybe you dont "need" to as one other poster claims, but if you do inform them, and they are willing to lend with indemnity, thats a good benchmark of what future buyers may encounter.
And if they arent, well the problem solves itself.