Urgent, management company slow, seller threatens to pull out

eddddy

Fire_Fox wrote: »

That makes no sense.

The covenants in the long lease (written contract) are between the freeholder (AKA superior landlord) and the long leaseholder (AKA tenant).

Random somebody anybody cannot just apply to a tribunal for enforcement of a restrictive covenant in a contract they are not even party to.

It wouldn't be a random anybody - it would be another leaseholder.

The way leases are usually structured would mean the situation could pan-out as follows:

• The leases have covenants saying no sub-letting

• But leaseholder of flat 1 sub-lets

• So leaseholder of flat 2 complains to freeholder, and tells freeholder to enforce covenants on flat 1

• The leases will say that if one leaseholder complains about a breach of covenant by another leaseholder, the freeholder must take action to enforce the covenant

• If the freeholder refuses to take action against flat 1, so flat 2 takes the freeholder to court to get an injunction against the freeholder

• The freeholder must now take action against flat 1, or be in contempt of court.

So if the freeholder had given flat 1 consent to sub-let, the freeholder is now in a big mess - because they have an injunction against them saying they must stop flat 1 sub-letting.

G_M

Emi5 wrote: »

I appreciate your replies to my long post. The wording in the lease reads:

8a. Not at any time to sublet or create any form of tenancy which allows the tenant to part with possession of the whole of the demised premises or to permit or suffer the same to be done.
b. Not without the lessor's previous written consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) to create any sub-tenancy or other occupancy of part of the demised premises thereof

Surely points A and B contradict each other which I think is what my solicitor is querying. Although the fact that it says "not to be unreasonably withheld" surely gives me some leeway? Should I just drop this point with my solicitor? Honestly, I'm so stressed I'm tempted to tell the seller I'll pay his September mortgage payment if he holds on a bit longer. I guess that's a stupid thing to do, right? The flat is vacant and the seller has moved away so he has been incurring the costs since April.

Would you be willing to take their word for it regarding the leak?

My underlining/bold highlights the difference between a) and b).

The lease clearly says no to any form of tenancy which includes the whole flat

Letting part of the flat requires consent - however I imagine this could be got round by having a lodger on a licence (not a tenancy).