Cost of retrospective consent

korntogo10

Hi all.

I am keen to get as many views on the following and appreciate everyone's input.

I own a leasehold maisonette and have done since August 2016. I am now looking to sell.

Upon purchase of the property 3 years ago I discovered it was it was plagued with
dry rot. I got the very basic of surveys (the free one) and so it was never going to
be picked up (you live and learn).

I regularly contacted the freeholder maintenance company about this as I deemed
it their fault on the basis of a leaking water pipe from the flat they owned at the
top of the property as well as a damaged water drainage pipe on the other side of
the property. As this was external it is deemed their responsibility to maintain it.

I did get pay a surveyor to view my property in the end (after I had purchase the property)
and he confirmed that the dry rot was most likely due to the water and drainpipe mentioned
above.

Moving on, I was getting very little back from the free holder maintenance company and so I just
carried out repairs to my property myself (enlisting profession help to treat the dry rot).

Because of the dry rot I have to take the kitchen and shower out completely and install new
ones once the dry rot had been treated. Arguably it could be therefore deemed remedial work (they had to come out to make treat the dry rot).

I did try to claim against the maintenance company but they said as I had not got them involved
prior (I did try) that I shouldn't have gone ahead and done the work and thus would have to
mitigate my own losses.

So I now want to sell my property but my solicitors have said that upon reviewing my lease agreement (I have quoted a relevant stipulation below) that I will likely have to gain retrospective consent from the freeholder maintenance company.

'Not without licence of the Lessor in writing first obtained to alter the elevations or cut main or alter the main walls main timbers or principal partitions of the Demised Premises or of any future buildings or additions to the Demised Premises or to erect any new buildings thereon or carry out any operation or institure or continue any use of the Demised Premises or any addition thereto or any part thereof respectively for which permission is for the time being required under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1947 and 1971 or any Act or Acts for the time being amending or replacing the same'

I understand this is the norm and that the retrospective fees would normally be around £400 - 500 HOWEVER I am skeptical that it will be that easy.

What do you all think? Are the freeholders likely to ask for a much higher sum? E.g £4000 - 7000 or more? If so why?

I must say I have learnt of a lot in the last 3 years and If I had my time again I would have never bought the maisonette, however had I still bought it and found the issues with the dry rot I would have likely just asked for consent to make the repairs and I imagine the freeholders would have provided said consent.

Sorry for the length of this thread everyone. I know it is a long one but any input would be greatly appreciated, I need to move on.

davidmcn

Have you actually altered the property in any material way rather than just carry out repairs? That clause isn't very clear but could be read as only applying to works or changes of use which require planning consent.

eddddy

To a great extent, it will be a case of how your buyer's solicitor interprets that clause.

If the buyer's solicitor insists to the buyer or their lender that consent is required, you'll have to either:

• get consent, or
• find another buyer whose solicitor has a different opinion

Anyway,

The law says that the fee for consent must be 'reasonable'.

Realistically, it depends on what work the freeholders/management company do in order to grant consent.

If they just send you a letter of consent, the fee for that should be about £50.

(Tribunals in the past have agreed that £40 per hour + vat is a 'reasonable' rate for standard admin tasks.)

But if, for example, they want to get

• a builder to lift floor boards and remove plaster board to make inspection possible
• a surveyor to do the inspection
• a structural engineer to check structural integrity

... you'd have to pay for those, and that might run into a thousand or two.

But you can also argue that it's not 'reasonable' to do all that stuff.

korntogo10

davidmcn wrote: »

Have you actually altered the property in any material way rather than just carry out repairs? That clause isn't very clear but could be read as only applying to works or changes of use which require planning consent.

That depends on what level of alteration you mean. I have not built an extension or added a wall to create another room or anything like that. The main floor plan of the property is the same.

I have however installed a different kitchen and shower tray and toilet. Again these things all had to come out for the treatment specialists to carry out the dry rot treatment.

Also thank you for your input I very much appreciate it.

korntogo10

eddddy wrote: »

To a great extent, it will be a case of how your buyer's solicitor interprets that clause.

If the buyer's solicitor insists to the buyer or their lender that consent is required, you'll have to either:

• get consent, or
• find another buyer whose solicitor has a different opinion

Anyway,

The law says that the fee for consent must be 'reasonable'.

Realistically, it depends on what work the freeholders/management company do in order to grant consent.

If they just send you a letter of consent, the fee for that should be about £50.

(Tribunals in the past have agreed that £40 per hour + vat is a 'reasonable' rate for standard admin tasks.)

But if, for example, they want to get

• a builder to lift floor boards and remove plaster board to make inspection possible
• a surveyor to do the inspection
• a structural engineer to check structural integrity

... you'd have to pay for those, and that might run into a thousand or two.

But you can also argue that it's not 'reasonable' to do all that stuff.

Hi Eddy, thank you this is also very useful. I was not aware on how they put together the costs.
In my honest opinion the freeholder maintenance company are very lousy and just charge ridiculous amounts of money for not very much of a service when it comes to maintenance.
I do wonder whether they would go as far as to enlist professionals to check out every aspect of my property. Then again they might do.

Doozergirl

I'd find a new solicitor if you haven't already accepted an offer and started the process.

You've carried out some remedial work in the flat and have put in a kitchen and bathroom. You don't need planning permission for that, which is how I interpret that clause; if it needs planning permission (and fairly, building control approval for internal structural alterations), it needs freeholder consent.

If you've materially changed the layout by removing walls then yes, it's absolutely reasonable that the freeholder assess it for safety and gives their permission.

But to repair and replace damaged items within your walls, no way. I wouldn't even count replacing the odd joist if it's like-for-like and I wouldn't bother mentioning it to anyone.

korntogo10

Doozergirl wrote: »

I'd find a new solicitor if you haven't already accepted an offer and started the process.

You've carried out some remedial work in the flat and have put in a kitchen and bathroom. You don't need planning permission for that, which is how I interpret that clause; if it needs planning permission (and fairly, building control approval for internal structural alterations), it needs freeholder consent.

If you've materially changed the layout by removing walls then yes, it's absolutely reasonable that the freeholder assess it for safety and gives their permission.

But to repair and replace damaged items within your walls, no way. I wouldn't even count replacing the odd joist if it's like-for-like and I wouldn't bother mentioning it to anyone.

Your timing is impeccable. I emailed the solicitors saying I was keen to move things forward with them but could they send their terms and conditions of service to me. Therefore I don't believe I am tied in with them yet as I have yet to sign anything. Thank you for your input. Do you mind me asking if you have had a lot of experience with similar matters as this one?

In the meantime I will look for second opinion from another solicitor.

Sachs

I would ask your solicitor to explain why they think you need consent. I can't see how anything you've done is relevant to that clause.

SmashedAvacado

The fees charged relate to the costs incurred by the landlord rather than a profit element. Those fees can be for legal work and surveying works. Lawyers fees for a licence to alter can be several hundred plus VAT. As can surveyors. If you're asked to pay less than this then i would do so with the minimal of fuss

I would of course caveat all of this to asking my solicitor why they believe that i needed consent for the works done.

AdrianC

Was it actually DRY rot? A fungal growth that attacks the wood.

Or was it simply wet rot, due to the water ingress?

Doozergirl

korntogo10 wrote: »

Your timing is impeccable. I emailed the solicitors saying I was keen to move things forward with them but could they send their terms and conditions of service to me. Therefore I don't believe I am tied in with them yet as I have yet to sign anything. Thank you for your input. Do you mind me asking if you have had a lot of experience with similar matters as this one?

In the meantime I will look for second opinion from another solicitor.

Well, I've been renovating, buying and selling houses (and flats) for 20 years and own an award winning building company. For my sins, I was also a freeholder for about a decade. Does that count?