Ddddb Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Hi Kaye, If you still have a copy, I also would appreciate a copy of the letter you sent to the freeholder. Thanks, Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ddddb Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 p.s. I would have pm'd you, but as another user stated above, one must first make five posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diego Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm interested in buying a flat but part of the lease seems to state that you can't have a satellite dish. This is what it says: 'not to erect any pole mast wire or dish (whether in connection with telegraphic radio or television communication or otherwise) upon the Premises'. It seems pretty clear cut but looking at pictures of the flats in the block each one has a dish, including the one I want to buy. Is it possible that they sought permission from the management company or would this option need to stated in the lease? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Where there's a restrictive covenant, it is either absolute [as in this case] or qualified [i.e. with the extra words something like "Except with the landlord's consent, not to..."]. Both necessitate consent but an absolute covenant entitles L to grant or withhold consent at will- i.e. T has no comeback. Contrast this with a qualified covenant, when L has to provide a valid reason- as the words "such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed" are implied. So, yes, each T with a satellite dish needs L's consent. Before you proceed, tell your solicitor to investigate this thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diego Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Where there's a restrictive covenant, it is either absolute [as in this case] or qualified [i.e. with the extra words something like "Except with the landlord's consent, not to..."]. Both necessitate consent but an absolute covenant entitles L to grant or withhold consent at will- i.e. T has no comeback. Contrast this with a qualified covenant, when L has to provide a valid reason- as the words "such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed" are implied. So, yes, each T with a satellite dish needs L's consent. Before you proceed, tell your solicitor to investigate this thoroughly. Thanks for this explanation. Another clause relates to being able to rent out the flat and it is a qualified covenant as it mentions something along the lines of being 'unreasonably withheld'. What is generally considered as being 'unreasonably withheld'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renault2010 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I remember there was a pub on sale for 10k, their leasehold was about to expire in 2 years. think it answers your question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diego Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I remember there was a pub on sale for 10k, their leasehold was about to expire in 2 years. think it answers your question I'm not questioning the length of the lease, just some clauses that are in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Thanks for this explanation. Another clause relates to being able to rent out the flat and it is a qualified covenant as it mentions something along the lines of being 'unreasonably withheld'. What is generally considered as being 'unreasonably withheld'? Well, L has to produce a reason that's acceptable to T. The onus of proof is on L [to show that it's reasonable], not on T [to show that it's not]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tMarston Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I've inquired about a flat but there are some issues with the management company/service charge etc. The situation is as follows: The property is a repossession and the previous owner was in charge of the management company. As such the management company was liquidated when the owner got repossessed. There is now a new management company in place but they are only responsible for collecting ground rent and the buidlings insurance. So there is no service charge to cover repairs etc. In this instance does that mean that if any repairs need carrying out it's up to the flat holders (4 in total inc. this flat) to agree it between themselves? So if anybody disagreed about their share then it would have to go to court? Also where does it leave the lease if the management company goes bust. Does a new lease need drawing up or can the old one be transferred? Any advice would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 SF is not really a suitable place to go into that depth of analysis. The solicitor acting on such a purchase really needs to dig-in to the documentation before it's safe to allow you to proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now