X

Sign Up

or

By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Sign Up

Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google

or


By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Log In

or


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Forgot Password

To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.


Already a PT member? Log In

Don't have an account? Sign Up

  • Leasehold Property

    Pier/Regisport Landlord,anyone else atenant?

    Hi

    Is anyone else a tenant/owner of property where the Landlord is Pier/Regisport?  My development is in Feltham, Middlesex.

    I'm having issues with this landlord who, for the first time in 10 years is telling me I need to apply to it for a "formal registration document" to register my Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement for a flat I let out.

    They are also claiming a very high fee of £120.

    To me it is questionable whether the clause upon which they seek to rely does actually create an obligation to "register" a tenancy agreement.

    They also suggest that I am not allowed to let to students, asylum seekers etc.

    This particular landlord tried 10 years ago to force tenants to pay a fee and seek "permission to let" their properties but tenants were successful in overturning this requirement by seeking legal advice to show there was no basis in the lease allowing the landlord to do this.  This landlord had to refund fees they had claimed for this which were not legitimately due and were not allowed to force tenants to seek permission to let.

    I am wondering if anyone else is now facing this new claim that tenancy agreements must be "registered".

    If anyone is in the same boat I'd be grateful if you could get in touch so that perhaps a joint claim or approach may be made against this landlord.

    0
    0

    Back in 2012 the upper tier Land Tribunal decreed that following four different cases brought before it, sub-letting fees should be limited to £40 plus VAT.  It may be worth challenging Pier Management and quoting the LVT: UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) Sub-Letting Licenses: (SOLITAIRE) LIMITED Appellant and CHERRY LILIAN NORTON and other cases [2012].



    1
    0

    Just an anonymous opinion on the Internet.

    Thank you very much, that could be helpful.


    0
    0

    If there is anyone else out there who has more recent experience than 2012 - or more recent case law I would be very grateful.

    Also, if anyone else is a tenant of Pier/Regisport and finds themselves in a similar situation right now or recently.

    Thanks in advance.

    0
    0

    Yes, a Regisport 'tenant' for 20 years. Re KT Landlord's post, the £40 UTT limit on sub-letting fees came in response, I think, to a campaign by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website over exorbitant charges.

    In some ways, the UTT's ruling is unhelpful to us as tenants and, arguably, unlawful. Such rulings cannot trump the tenant's lease which importantly may NOT require the tenant to pay a sub-letting fee - al all. If the UTT ruling were to become 'law by common assent', it would mean ALL landlords could charge ALL tenants £40, willy nilly. In that sense, the UTT is unwittingly conspiring with landlords.

    As with us here at Mill Quay E14, the leases require tenants to notify the landlord (Pier/Regisport) of any sub-letting in the last seven years of the (99-year) term. Therefore, assuming no other overriding provision in the lease as to sub-letting, if the tenant is not required to notify then there is no responsibility to pay a letting charge (otherwise called a licence fee).

    I raised this with Pier's legal dept some years' back and had no problem in persuading them that they had no right to insist on being notified of sub-letting and therefore no right to charge. They agreed without hesitation that my lease did not require it. [I did ask them to change the wording on their website that suggested all tenants were liable to pay for a licence to sub-let. They haven't; I guess it was a step too far.]

    There is another aspect that I'm not fully up-to-date with - and that is the law. Depending on the form of sub-letting - AST, HMO etc - current and proposed regulations allow local authorities to require sub-letting in their area to be licensed. Here at Tower Hamlets, HMO landlords must be licenced. In some authority areas where ASB is an issue, I believe all landlords must be licenced - sub-letting, buy-to-let etc.

    Your local authority will be able to tell you what their requirements as to sub-letting are.




    0
    0

    First and foremost, there must be a clause in the lease that allows them to do this. Modern leases tend to have this, but older ones don't.

    0
    0

    Ashley Connell
    Lease Extension Solicitor at Hetts

    http://lease-extensions.org.uk