I will try to assist you with this.
You would be able to take the bathroom out and replace it with a new one. That is not a breach of the covenant in the lease unless it specifically says that. If she took you to court on that, she is likely to lose.
Do you have any specific questions I can answer for you?
I just need to do a little bit of research because it is case law, the name of which escapes me, but let me exaggerate to prove the point. Using the landlords school of thought,you couldn’t change a light fitting or the wallpaper! Is the freeholder seriously suggesting that?
Can you attach the lease or let me know the alterations covenant wording?
If you can’t Zip the file, all I need is the wording of the clause with regard to any alterations to the property
Clause 4 on page 5 I can’t quite see the subparagraphs because the ink seems to have come through the page from the back, about a third of the way down the page, “not to make any structural alterations or structural additions to the demise premises nor to……. remove any of the landlord’s fixtures or fittings without previous consent. “ which says that you can’t actually remove or change the bathroom or the kitchen. The landlords fittings in a residential property is not a common provision, and even if it is in there, it would normally say to repair or replace any which have become beyond use or broken.
It is the final part of this, “landlords fixtures or fittings” which is relevant here. Landlords fixtures or fittings are not defined and hence it would come down to a normal common meaning. That would probably include the bathroom and the kitchen.
Under clause 4h you have got to yield up the premises in good and tenantable repair and condition including the landlords fixtures and fittings, BUT you can’t do that if the landlord will not allow you to replace them which, on a strict interpretation of the lease, under clause 4 the landlord can do.
So either the landlord allows you to do this in order view to comply with the covenants in the lease or they refuse and you can’t.
Hence, if this went to court, the court would use the blue pencil test and the conflicting clauses would be struck out.
On a strict interpretation, you cannot surrender the premises with the landlord’s fixtures in good repair if the landlord will not allow you to replace them. That’s why said the if this went to court, court are likely to strike out the 2 clauses. What the landlady is doing is just reading the parts of the lease which suit her
Incidentally, she can only charge you for the licence for the changes if there is a provision in the lease whereby she can charge you for the licence otherwise, she has to stump up the costs for that.
There is case law whereby if a restrictive covenant has been breached for 20 years, then it’s no longer enforceable. To my mind therefore, if the bathroom was changed last time or has been changed since the lease was drafted, and a 20 year period as a lapse, it’s no longer enforceable. The case is Hepworth v Pickles.
Please don’t forget to rate the service positive. We can still exchange emails.
I haven’t studied the lease in detail because it’s out of focus very difficult to me to read so I just looked for the clauses relating to alterations and repairs.
I’m assuming you’ve read the good copy and there is no provision.
I’m not saying the clause is not in there, I’m just saying that if it’s not, they can’t charge.
Previous period of occupancy is added to yours. She cannot allow things to go ahead in the past four years and then selectively try to enforce against you because she’s annoyed about something else.
If you got 19 years, then the previous period of occupancy would be added to that fortunately
I printed the pages off and it’s blurred. It looks out of focus. I don’t think it’s a problem with the lease itself but a problem with the camera which took the picture.
However you can read the lease because the reference to paying the costs will be quite obvious. Just read it from end to end.
I think you’re probably correct that she wouldn’t be forcing you to pay her legal costs in respect of the licences, she would just be sending you the bill and referring to the clause in the lease. What you can do is get her to read the lease and say that you are prepared to consider paying her legal costs if she can point to the provision in the lease where it says thethe leaseholder has to pay for any licence.
It’s not necessarily a game changer but it just gives you a bit more leverage.
The previous changes of bathroom which have gone unchallenged for more than 20 years would mean that is no longer enforceable in my opinion. It doesn’t matter that it was during the period of the previous occupier.
I agree with you in your assumption. Her lawyers may not and it would be for a court to decide. It’s not something which if I was her I would be rushing to court over because with the nature of the change, and it being an improvement, the court is highly unlikely to make you put it back and is highly unlikely to foreclose on the lease. I don’t know what this woman is trying to achieve apart from being awkward. The court would see that.
Thank you. With regard to subletting, once again, unless it says that you’re not allowed to sublet, then you can do freely
Clause g only refers to under letting in the last seven years of the term which is not a problem for you
1 of the First schedule would stop you using it as a holiday let but not letting it on a six-month Assured Short hold Tenancy.
They are much clearer.
Can you let me have the solicitors letter?
What date is on it?
How long has this been going on for?
If you want me to word the reply to the solicitor, I can do that for you as an extra service. I will submit a proposal when I have seen the solicitor’s letter and had time to study the lease further.
I have 12 pages of the lease. Page 13 has gone awry. Can you let me have the others please?
I managed, between going cross eyed with the blurred images and the later clearer images, to read the whole lease. The only reference to costs is the cost of serving a section 146 notice in respect of lack of repairs by the tenant.
If you are using this for holiday letting, and you are not doing it on an Assured Short hold Tenancy, for a minimum of six months, then you are not using it as a private dwelling house. I have had several of these cases recently. It is classed as temporary accommodation not a dwellinghouse.
I think the costs the solicitors are probably referring to are going to be there costs of dealing with the alleged holiday lettings rather than the costs of dealing with the bathroom andkitchen issue.
That apart, I really need to see the letter from the solicitor and if you are doing holiday letting, you would be well advised not to let this get to court.
Further, if you have a mortgage, you will be in breach of your mortgage conditions unless holiday letting is specific only allowed the terms of the mortgage. It would be as well to check with your lender because I would be very surprised if your lender would allow this even if you have a buy to let mortgage because with my to let mortgages, they generally insist that the properties are let on a Assured Short old Tenancy
In which case, you are probably better doing 6month (the minimum period) Assured Short hold Tenancy agreements. You can then show the solicitor that you have these tenancy agreements and that would be sufficient for the court. You don’t have to actually enforce them! You just have to appear to do so.
I need the solicitors letter from you to do your reply
I have done your letter. I need your email address to send it to please
I couldn’t read the inserted replies from the solicitors in the attachment. I could read the letter from the solicitor and I can read all your letter to Mrs Leventi but the inserted emails from the solicitors are blurred.
You haven’t mentioned the light before. You need to remove that because it is trespass.
You also haven’t mentioned the Velux window,you would need consent for that. I haven’t mentioned it in my reply.
Please read the reply word by word and make any changes which are quite correct.you know the complete circumstances and where things are right at the moment, and I don’t.
You have mail