Monthly Archives: May 2012

You are browsing the site archives by month.

By Steve Roulstone

 

As an agent who act as both a Letting Agent and a Block Management Agent, we are in a fortunate position especially when renting property on sites that we manage as well, of being both aware and able to ensure that the rules of the site in question are adhered to in our Tenancy rental agreements. This was highlighted last week when a Tenant that we had turned down for a property because we knew pets were not allowed, was moved in to the same site through a different Agent, but still with pet dog at heel!

Clarification.

 

Let me first of all clarify the situation regarding the owners of Leasehold property. In law, they are Tenants of the property but on a lease which normally lasts in the region of 90 plus years. Therefore, when they let a property, they are in effect sub-letting to a second Tenant on a short term lease, usually an assured shorthold agreement. The important part of this clarification is that the Leaseholder has an agreement, the Lease, which he must abide by. This Lease will confirm what is allowed and what is not allowed to happen on site through covenants included within the lease, from the basic permission for the Leaseholder to sub-let, to such items as the use of the Car Park, balconies, use of common areas and of course the all important item for this Blog, permission for pets to be kept on site or not as the case may be!

 

The rights of the Tenant.

 

What is important for the Leaseholder is the need for such covenants that impact on the second Tenant to be included in the shorthold agreement, so that they can be enforced. Fail to state in an agreement that all covenants included in the site lease apply and such covenants cannot be enforced. I have had situations before where a second Tenant stored a caravan on the car park, which was against the lease and as Block Managing Agent it was our role to enforce the covenant. Fortunately the Tenant was very understanding as they wanted to stay long term and found alternative storage for the caravan. If they had not, the guilty party would have been the Leaseholder, as it is their responsibility to ensure, if allowed to sub let, that the terms of the Lease are upheld.

 

Back to the Dog.

 

So now we are faced with a situation where a potential Tenant had been turned away from the site because they had a pet. Correct on our part, we manage the site, we are aware of the covenant. The person concerned, because he wanted to live on this particular site, followed up another flat available through a different agent and because they said nothing, has moved in to the flat with dog ensconced. Now it is our duty to inform the Leaseholder that they have moved a pet in too a flat against the lease and that they must enforce the provisions of the covenant and remove the pet.

 

Implications.

 

Of course, providing the agreement is the normal six month Assured Shorthold agreement, then notice can be given and the matter dealt with sooner rather than later, although the reaction of the Tenant may not be as understanding as we achieved with the Caravan. I cannot foresee him finding somebody else to look after the animal having engineered a situation where he achieved his initial objective.  For the Landlord, somewhere along the line, the potential of greater costs and or loss of rent will be significant. If I were him, then a discussion with the agent would be forthcoming, again, sooner rather than later.

 

Conclusion.

 

What should always happen on any leasehold site is the lease should be checked, or at least the question asked of the Landlord, what are the restrictive covenants for the site concerned? For the Tenant in such situations, whether carried out with knowledge or not (although some would say in this case the action as carried out with full knowledge that pets were not allowed because we had already informed him) there is the question of compensation for at least moving costs and / or the cost of dealing with whatever the implications are of complying with unknown covenants at the time of signing the secondary lease.  These could of course be significant depending upon the situation, but the bottom line is that as Leaseholder the fault lies with allowing the situation to develop without sufficient safeguards in place. The question that has to be asked is why was the Tenant moved in without the Agent giving the Landlord best advice? Probably a question the agent may find difficult to answer!