No Alterations clause in Lease

tizzle6560

For anyone still following this thread - I have chased the ManCo for a few weeks now, simply asking for an explanation/justification for the additional premium added.

Just to put this into context further - we have previously needed and requested a deed of variation and change to the lease document for an issue around our garden being 100% private. We only had to pay lega/admin fees last time round but never any premium..

da_rule

What does the lease say about charging fees for consents?

tizzle6560

da_rule wrote: »

What does the lease say about charging fees for consents?

It doesn't say anything about charging any fees for consents, just that any alterations need prior consent and that any such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld..

'unreasonably withheld' is just the equivalent of how long is a piece of string though no..

SmashedAvacado

If you are making a non structural alteration and your lease restricts the making of structural alterations only, then you don't need to get any consent.

The landlord is probably trying it on.

If you are making a structural alteration, then consent would be needed, and you can expect to pay the costs incurred by the landlord which could include lawyers and surveyors. But you shouldn't have to pay any sort of fee.

Beyond the scope of the lease, there is an entitlement to make alterations to a property regardless of the lease if they do not damage the reversion of the landlord. However, we don't need to go into this in more detail as you have described making some non-structural alterations. When you come to sell, no-one will ask for a consent if you can show that what you have done does not need consent.

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

If you are making a non structural alteration and your lease restricts the making of structural alterations only, then you don't need to get any consent.

The landlord is probably trying it on.

If you are making a structural alteration, then consent would be needed, and you can expect to pay the costs incurred by the landlord which could include lawyers and surveyors. But you shouldn't have to pay any sort of fee.

Beyond the scope of the lease, there is an entitlement to make alterations to a property regardless of the lease if they do not damage the reversion of the landlord. However, we don't need to go into this in more detail as you have described making some non-structural alterations. When you come to sell, no-one will ask for a consent if you can show that what you have done does not need consent.

Thanks for your reply.

The one caveat I can think of for this though is - would we not have to obtain a new/updated lease plan showing the additional space, as it is technically adding some more internal space to the property.

Technically we are simply removing some plasterboard and making good of a redundant space that has always been there.

Also can you please explain what you mean by - if they do not damage the reversion of the landlord??

TIA

SmashedAvacado

So if the space is already within the title to your property and registered to you, then you are fine. The lease plan does not need to show the layout.

damage to the reversion (briefly) means that as long as what you do in your ownership could not be seen as damaging the landlord's interest in the property (because at lease expiry what is yours is his) but basically that is a very hard test for a landlord to show unless you only have a short period on the lease to run.

if you have a builder give you a quote for the work or something, and they demonstrate its nonstructural then i am not sure you need to go any further with the landlord.

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

So if the space is already within the title to your property and registered to you, then you are fine. The lease plan does not need to show the layout.

The space sits in what is shown in the lease plan as the (private) garden.

Can I ask you how sure you are on this point above though - as if I use this argument, I want to make sure what I'm saying is correct?

TIA (again)

SmashedAvacado

Not fully clear on what you mean. So there is already part of a building within the red line of your demise but which isn't shown on the lease plan - and that part of the building is joined to the part of the building that is shown as being part of a building on your lease plan / title plan and you are planning to knock through (but not impacting the structure)?

if the alterations are non structural you don't need consent if that's what your lease says
If you contact the landlord and update them in that regard, i suspect you will hear no more.
Without seeing your documents - lease, lease plan, title plan i can't be sure of your position, but in general terms if you are undertaking non structural work and this is not prohibited under your lease, you do not need to engage with the landlord.

tizzle6560

Here is an image of our lease plan, where I have subsequently added the area in question highlighted in RED

The GREEN area depicts the internal alcove where the original doorway once was, but subsequently plasterboard'ed up.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vvtgld2sm2zxl4/Floor%20plan%20-%20annex%20room.jpg?dl=0

This photo shows the side room attached to the structure of the building. Both are part of the original structure

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffa6o4zkensj0hr/Rear%20of%20property%20-%20annex%20room.jpg?dl=0

TIA

tizzle6560

Quick update on this -

The room/area in question was converted into an en-suite shower room AT LEAST 15 years ago, and obviously without consent or permission hence why it was boarded up again and doesn't appear on the lease plan

Do I have any ground for saying that this was done over 10 years ago and is therefore immune to needing any consent/permission to redo into an en suite or similar??