Owner occupiers only question

RAS

Buy copies of the lease from the Land Registry. You're probably going to need to fill in the form for the full lease, so it will take time.

If it says that the property cannot be sub-let or can only be sub-let with express permission, then doing anything other than living in it will cause trouble. And if it restricts what you can do inside the flat during renovations, you need to know.

How'd they find out? The other occupiers know who you are and see someone else going into the flat and report to the freeholder or management company. The management company are doing some work and discover an unexpected occupant. You have a run in with your tenant and they report you. Someone else in the block identifies the flat from lettings listing. Could go on.

Bit of an issue if you have a tenant who you can't shift and and the management company start action to enforce the lease?

If you understand this much about leasehold, it might be a good idea to learn a lot more about being a landlord before you go further. Even if you let via an agent, you are also legally liable for any failures, fines and penalties.

eddddy

Yep - your question might be whether it's a condition of the lease that no sub-letting (renting out) is allowed, or whether it's just a preference by the freeholder / management company.


But if it's just a preference (but allowed by the lease), I guess you might get some hostility from the freeholder and/or your neighbours if you decide to do something that others prefer you not to do. But maybe you're ok with that.

Idpullthecurtain

RAS said:

Buy copies of the lease from the Land Registry. You're probably going to need to fill in the form for the full lease, so it will take time.

If it says that the property cannot be sub-let or can only be sub-let with express permission, then doing anything other than living in it will cause trouble. And if it restricts what you can do inside the flat during renovations, you need to know.

How'd they find out? The other occupiers know who you are and see someone else going into the flat and report to the freeholder or management company. The management company are doing some work and discover an unexpected occupant. You have a run in with your tenant and they report you. Someone else in the block identifies the flat from lettings listing. Could go on.

Bit of an issue if you have a tenant who you can't shift and and the management company start action to enforce the lease?

If you understand this much about leasehold, it might be a good idea to learn a lot more about being a landlord before you go further. Even if you let via an agent, you are also legally liable for any failures, fines and penalties.

Thanks for this info.  Its a house not a flat, I should have mentioned.
This sounds like it might be a headache.

Idpullthecurtain

eddddy said:

Yep - your question might be whether it's a condition of the lease that no sub-letting (renting out) is allowed, or whether it's just a preference by the freeholder / management company.


But if it's just a preference (but allowed by the lease), I guess you might get some hostility from the freeholder and/or your neighbours if you decide to do something that others prefer you not to do. But maybe you're ok with that.

Im starting to wonder if this might a non-starter for me.  I hate to have a property where I could be severely restricted with future movements.

Section62

lookbook said:

Even if you bought as owner occupier who would they know you are renting it out.  Once bought it's yours. 

You might think that, but it would be incorrect.  Even freehold property can come with restrictions on what you can and can't do with it.

Suggesting it is ok to do something which could land people in legal difficulties isn't good moneysaving advice.

RAS

Idpullthecurtain said:

RAS said:

Buy copies of the lease from the Land Registry. You're probably going to need to fill in the form for the full lease, so it will take time.

If it says that the property cannot be sub-let or can only be sub-let with express permission, then doing anything other than living in it will cause trouble. And if it restricts what you can do inside the flat during renovations, you need to know.

How'd they find out? The other occupiers know who you are and see someone else going into the flat and report to the freeholder or management company. The management company are doing some work and discover an unexpected occupant. You have a run in with your tenant and they report you. Someone else in the block identifies the flat from lettings listing. Could go on.

Bit of an issue if you have a tenant who you can't shift and and the management company start action to enforce the lease?

If you understand this much about leasehold, it might be a good idea to learn a lot more about being a landlord before you go further. Even if you let via an agent, you are also legally liable for any failures, fines and penalties.

Thanks for this info.  Its a house not a flat, I should have mentioned.
This sounds like it might be a headache.

You still need a copy of the lease, and to understand what restrictions there are on what you can do. You may only be able to change the external appearance, garden, or build any extension or structure with permission. There's a recent thread about someone told to remove his large shed, others about inability to install garden fences.

And there may be restrictions as part of the planning application that restrict usage.

BonaDea

Just find another property.  Whatever the legalities, if the owners have said they don't want to sell to landlords, you'd be acting in bad faith to present yourself as an owner-occupier.  

Idpullthecurtain

RAS said:

Idpullthecurtain said:

RAS said:

Buy copies of the lease from the Land Registry. You're probably going to need to fill in the form for the full lease, so it will take time.

If it says that the property cannot be sub-let or can only be sub-let with express permission, then doing anything other than living in it will cause trouble. And if it restricts what you can do inside the flat during renovations, you need to know.

How'd they find out? The other occupiers know who you are and see someone else going into the flat and report to the freeholder or management company. The management company are doing some work and discover an unexpected occupant. You have a run in with your tenant and they report you. Someone else in the block identifies the flat from lettings listing. Could go on.

Bit of an issue if you have a tenant who you can't shift and and the management company start action to enforce the lease?

If you understand this much about leasehold, it might be a good idea to learn a lot more about being a landlord before you go further. Even if you let via an agent, you are also legally liable for any failures, fines and penalties.

Thanks for this info.  Its a house not a flat, I should have mentioned.
This sounds like it might be a headache.

You still need a copy of the lease, and to understand what restrictions there are on what you can do. You may only be able to change the external appearance, garden, or build any extension or structure with permission. There's a recent thread about someone told to remove his large shed, others about inability to install garden fences.

And there may be restrictions as part of the planning application that restrict usage.

Yes, I understand that.  Id definitely get the lease.

I havent even viewed property yet.  Thats scheduled for today.  Its early stages.

Im still at the stage of considering if I should even view it it means I may be forced to live in property when I may not want to.

Idpullthecurtain

BonaDea said:

Just find another property.  Whatever the legalities, if the owners have said they don't want to sell to landlords, you'd be acting in bad faith to present yourself as an owner-occupier.  

As I said, theres every chance I would be Occupier.  Im not trying to mislead anyone.

FlorayG

Idpullthecurtain said:

eddddy said:

I suspect there might be 2 possibilities...

• 1) The lease doesn't allow sub-letting. So the estate agents don't want to waste everyone's time by having BTL investors viewing. (And if the lease says that, you can't really get around it.)

• 2) The seller is being fussy - e.g. because they don't like BTL investors on principle. But if the lease allows sub-letting, you don't really have to worry about that. 

I see.  Thanks.  I spoke to EO.  They say the property will be leased through an organisation, they have multiple properties in the area and want occupiers rather than renters to protect the neighborhood.

So I imagine they could would/could include conditions in the lease?  So then my question to EO would be does the lease allows sub-letting?

What? What on earth do they mean by that? People who rent are usually criminals? That's appalling