Enforcement of a lease apparently

Rheld

not getting any answers to the actual question

eddddy

Rheld said

Would this be sufficient to refuse retrospective consent to sublet to these particular tenants?

In general, the law says that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

The law doesn't specifically define what "unreasonable" means. So if you refused consent, and it went all the way to tribunal, you would tell the tribunal your reasons and they would decide whether they are "unreasonable".

I guess there are other considerations:

• Do your company's articles of association allow decisions to be taken by just 2 out of 3 of you? (e.g. the decision to refuse consent to sublet)

• If you decide to refuse consent to sublet, but the leaseholder continues to sublet anyway, what will you do?

clairec666

Have you had a conversation with the tenants? You say they've caused "constant issues", so I was expecting you to say something about anti-social behaviour, loud music, etc., mountain bikes and laundry doesn't sound quite so serious. It's quite likely they aren't aware they aren't supposed to do these things, if their landlord hasn't told them the specific terms of the lease. It's definitely worth engaging with them first. Similar thing is happening in my building, tenants in the flat below me are keeping bikes on the stairs and didn't realise that this wasn't allowed.

gwynlas

If the owner/landlord is not complying with the terms of the lease then it is upto you as the two owner/occupiers to take whateber action is necessary to compel them to do so.

You should not be forced to accept tenants breaking the terms of the lease in invading communal areas. I would assume that their bikes for example are causing a fire hazard by being stored there, If they are that concerned about theft that they will not leave then securely locked in bike store then they should take them into the flat

Rheld

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095168#Comment_82095168

Enforcement is a separate issue.

saajan_12

In theory you can demand the landlord remedy the breach (by evicting them) taking it up to tribunal if necessary and if its severe enough then potentially ask for revocation of the lease. This is very extreme, costly and time consuming for all.

In practice , I would look to pick your battles - are there any provisions for regular cleaning of the communal areas? If so, cleaning the mud may be taken care of by that and not cost anything extra. If not, then the expense is still relatively small split 3 ways instead of all on the landlord.

Re items left in the communal areas, I understand this can get annoying if continuous. Perhaps put signs up in line with the lease, and state they will be removed by x date. You still have to store securely and give it back to the owners, but hopefully its annoying enough that they stop. Meanwhile make it clear to the LL what's coming if they don't put equal pressure on their tenant.

eddddy

Rheld said

not getting any answers to the actual question

Your question was

Would this be sufficient to refuse retrospective consent to sublet to these particular tenants?

Maybe you were hoping for a yes/no answer - but unfortunately the law doesn't work like that.

As I explained in my post above,

• The law says that a freeholder cannot unreasonably refuse consent.

• Ultimately, only a tribunal can decide whether the freeholder's refusal is unreasonable - based on the facts of your specific case

So your next steps could include:

• Looking at previous tribunal decisions, to see if you can find similar cases - and see what the tribunal decided
• Asking a solicitor who is familiar with past tribunal cases for their opinion on your case
• (If anyone on this forum is familiar with past tribunal cases, I suspect they would have mentioned them by now.)

Or the freeholder could try simply refusing consent, and see what happens. Possibilities include:

• The leaseholder stops subletting - and the problem goes away
• The leaseholder takes the freeholder to tribunal - for unreasonable refusal
• The leaseholder continues to sub-let, so the freeholder has to take enforcement action