Tweet
According to my lease: 'Not at any time during the term to cut maim alter or injure any of the walls or timbers or any part of the main structure of the building.'
I've taken out a partition wall to make the kitchen, living room and hall/entrance open plan. This was done without their consent but with Building control approval. I didn't think it was a big deal. Now apply for a license to alter.
My solicitors are saying that the freeholder wants me to indemnify all 113 other flats and them because I've breached my lease.
In the past, they have issued retrospective licenses to alter where they haven't asked to be indemnified. however, they (the freeholder) are now citing a new case law 'Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent' which means landlords can no longer license breach of leases that are absolute covenants.
I am claiming it is unreasonable and impractical to indemnify them for this. is it?
More on the case law. the duval case was about a load-bearing structural wall in a small 11 block of flats. I've taken out a partition wall is not load-bearing and not structural to the building and my building is a converted factory, is residential and commercial. it just feels like apples and pears.
I'm about to issue proceedings for a determination at court that the freeholder has unreasonably withheld a license to alter (to not be unreasonably withheld). My solicitor is confident. I just would like some guidance is im about to effectively sue my neighbours so i want to be sure its unreasonable.
I've taken out a partition wall to make the kitchen, living room and hall/entrance open plan. This was done without their consent but with Building control approval. I didn't think it was a big deal. Now apply for a license to alter.
My solicitors are saying that the freeholder wants me to indemnify all 113 other flats and them because I've breached my lease.
In the past, they have issued retrospective licenses to alter where they haven't asked to be indemnified. however, they (the freeholder) are now citing a new case law 'Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent' which means landlords can no longer license breach of leases that are absolute covenants.
I am claiming it is unreasonable and impractical to indemnify them for this. is it?
More on the case law. the duval case was about a load-bearing structural wall in a small 11 block of flats. I've taken out a partition wall is not load-bearing and not structural to the building and my building is a converted factory, is residential and commercial. it just feels like apples and pears.
I'm about to issue proceedings for a determination at court that the freeholder has unreasonably withheld a license to alter (to not be unreasonably withheld). My solicitor is confident. I just would like some guidance is im about to effectively sue my neighbours so i want to be sure its unreasonable.
Comment