New Lease Plan Required - Cost?

SDLT_Geek

A "licence to alter" document commonly has a plan attached in order to show the nature of the permitted alterations. That is not the same as changing the lease plan, nor changing the extent of the demise, nor changing any title plan as registered at the Land Registry.

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

For alterations, its unlawful for them to ask for a premium. You have a statutory right to make alterations which are improvements and do not damage the landlord's reversion. Which these won't. If you look at the previous thread (under the 1927 Act). Tell your landlord this.

Please excuse my ignorance on this, I am trying to learn as much as I can around this :mad:

Under the 1927 Act, does Leaseholder and Freeholder equate to the same as Tenant and Landlord?

SmashedAvacado

SDLT_Geek wrote: »

A "licence to alter" document commonly has a plan attached in order to show the nature of the permitted alterations. That is not the same as changing the lease plan, nor changing the extent of the demise, nor changing any title plan as registered at the Land Registry.

This is what i have been saying. What the OP needs to do is document the alterations.

SmashedAvacado

tizzle6560 wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance on this, I am trying to learn as much as I can around this :mad:

Under the 1927 Act, does Leaseholder and Freeholder equate to the same as Tenant and Landlord?

Yes - they are the same. The landlord is trying it on (at worst) or (at best) is unaware of its obligations in relation to your right to make improvements. They are entitled to their legal fees, but if they continue to ask for a premium, then you have a strong argument that they are unreasonably withholding consent.

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Yes - they are the same. The landlord is trying it on (at worst) or (at best) is unaware of its obligations in relation to your right to make improvements. They are entitled to their legal fees, but if they continue to ask for a premium, then you have a strong argument that they are unreasonably withholding consent.

I challenged the £500 premium and asked for an understanding on why they felt this was necessary.

I also tried to negotiate to meet them in the middle at £250, and all I got back from them was that 'they feel that the first offer is more than fair for this alteration'

I'm weary of accusing them of unreasonably withholding consent, as ultimately they could likely make life more difficult for us down the line with any other requests or when we come to sell etc.

So frustrating..

SmashedAvacado

tizzle6560 wrote: »

I challenged the £500 premium and asked for an understanding on why they felt this was necessary.

I also tried to negotiate to meet them in the middle at £250, and all I got back from them was that 'they feel that the first offer is more than fair for this alteration'

I'm weary of accusing them of unreasonably withholding consent, as ultimately they could likely make life more difficult for us down the line with any other requests or when we come to sell etc.

So frustrating..

If that's the entire fee and you are not liable for any legal fees, then its cheap. But you need to make sure that the alteration is documented properly - which means them issuing a formal consent for it. What you don't want to agree is paying £500 "premium" to find that you also get an invoice for £1500 plus VAT for the licence to alter and another £1000 plus VAT for the surveyors fees.

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

If that's the entire fee and you are not liable for any legal fees, then its cheap. But you need to make sure that the alteration is documented properly - which means them issuing a formal consent for it. What you don't want to agree is paying £500 "premium" to find that you also get an invoice for £1500 plus VAT for the licence to alter and another £1000 plus VAT for the surveyors fees.

No, they have also requested £450 + VAT in-house Legal fees, in addition to a £500 Premium.

I think I will go down the unreasonably refused consent path, down to the facts that -

- The area in question sits within what is shown on my lease plan as the demised and private garden.

- The works requested are not structural as the structure of the room itself is already there

- We simply want to remove an area of plasterboard and apply new plasterboard to the internal wall therein

- I'm assuming they don't have a separate title plan for this tiny room, if they argue that it does not fall under my demise.

Would you all (hopefully!) agree??

TIA

SmashedAvacado

- The works requested are not structural as the structure of the room itself is already there

I don't agree with this - structural works means works impacting the structure of the building.

My view is this (but i have not seen your lease):

1. You are entitled to apply to make alterations to your property under the 1927 Act and your landlord cannot unreasonably withhold that consent if the test is met that the landlord's reversion is not damaged (the test is wider than that but this is the relevant bit based on what you have said)
2. The landlord cannot reasonably require you to pay a premium
3. The landlord can require you to pay his legal and surveying costs
4. You don't need to ask to do the works if your lease does not restrict you doing the works - so if your lease only prohibits structural works and these are non structural then you can do them - end of
5. you dont need a new lease plan in any circumstances here.

If what you are doing is so minor how / why are you even in discussion with your landlord?

tizzle6560

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

I don't agree with this - structural works means works impacting the structure of the building.

My view is this (but i have not seen your lease):

1. You are entitled to apply to make alterations to your property under the 1927 Act and your landlord cannot unreasonably withhold that consent if the test is met that the landlord's reversion is not damaged (the test is wider than that but this is the relevant bit based on what you have said)
2. The landlord cannot reasonably require you to pay a premium
3. The landlord can require you to pay his legal and surveying costs
4. You don't need to ask to do the works if your lease does not restrict you doing the works - so if your lease only prohibits structural works and these are non structural then you can do them - end of
5. you dont need a new lease plan in any circumstances here.

If what you are doing is so minor how / why are you even in discussion with your landlord?

As per our lease, it states under 'No Alterations'-
Not at an time during the said term to make any structural alterations in or structural additions to the Demised Premises or any part thereof or to cut, maim, alter or injure any walls or timbers thereof or to alter the Lessor's fixtures therein, without first obtaining the Lessor's written consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

The structure of the room is already there, so technically we are not adding to or altering any existing structural works to the building itself. We are simply removing some plasterboard to open up a preexisting space. Although I appreciate the above wording can be open to interpretation.

The sole reason for raising this with the FH from the beginning was in case it caused issues when we come to sell, as any potential buyer may question why this small area is not on the existing lease plan. More fool me for trying to do the right thing.

Based on the above, would you still say that they are unreasonably withholding consent unless we pay the premium on top of Legal/admin fees already?

TIA

SmashedAvacado

As simply as possible you have one of two situations here

1) your alterations are not prohibited by the lease and therefore they don't need consent
2) your alterations need consent but in asking for a premium for consent the landlord is being unreasonable in withholding consent

I dont see a third place.

You would rather be in camp (1) than camp (2). If it were me, i would carry on, on the basis that the works are not prohibited and not engage with the landlord further on it.