Rental restriction placed in title deeds

Rental restriction placed in title deeds

13:10 PM, 10th February 2014, About 10 years ago 40

Text Size

In 2012, I bought my first house from Places for People – long story short, I am now looking to move in with my girlfriend to her house and rent my property out. Therein lies the problem. In my Title Deeds, Places for People have included a restriction that states that I may not rent my property out (you know, the house that I own…through my mortgage of course). I am aware that this is something I should’ve checked prior to purchasing the property however at the time, I bought the property (with my ex-gf) with a view to it being a long-term family home…no such luck!

Since September I have been trying to get this restriction removed from my Title Deeds. Having spoken to Places for People, they have agreed that I may rent my house out although I need to go through THEIR letting agents. This isn’t the end of the world, but I just annoyed that I am still bound to them! Rental restriction placed in title deeds

Today I have found out that they aren’t going to be removing the restriction from me Title Deeds but have provided me with a letter that states “In order to progress your application for a licence to sublet, I would be greatful if you would complete and return the attached form. this will then be considered in line with our policy, if your request is approved then there is a charge of £250.00 including VAT for the preparation of the licence that is required for you to sublet. If a licence to sublet is issued this will be for a period of 24 months with a need to be renewed after this time…”

The question I’m really asking, is a) how do hey get away with including those sort of restrictions in the Title Deeds of a property and b) are they within their rights charge me £250 bi-annually for a “licence” to rent my property? They have stated that as they are the beneficiary of the restrictive covenants, they grant a licence to “sublet or underlet” my property to ensure that any tenants I have abide by the restrictions set out in Title Deeds.

Any help or advice here would be very much appreciated!

Thanks

Dan


Share This Article


Comments

Neil Patterson

13:12 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Daniel Ramsell" at "12/02/2014 - 12:45":

Hi Daniel,

Yes that would make sense as a business practice and I think from your discussion on the thread you are in a much better place to start negotiating with People for Places as understanding each other is the key.

Daniel Ramsell

13:33 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Patterson" at "12/02/2014 - 13:12":

I do need to get off my high horse now...

£250 = inital fee payable for drawing up the licence to let (being a legal document and all).

I will need to renew the licence every 2 years however the £250 is for the initial document.

Also, "The clause in your deeds is a clause that is common to all the freehold properties on site rather than one imposed because of your equity loan" - aka - we don't want the competition!

Neil Patterson

13:59 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Daniel Ramsell" at "12/02/2014 - 13:33":

Excellent getting better all the time.

Always more productive just to Hug it out in my book 🙂

Jeremy Smith

19:10 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

My questions still come to mind:

is it an "unfair term" that has been imposed, to tie you to one letting agent, or not be allowed to let at all?
What if their fees and commission are exorbitant? 20% pcm perhaps ?

and
it creates a monopoly, is this allowed, or can it be challenged ?
In the big bad world, such as banks, monopolies are forbidden.

Just thoughts !

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

19:22 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "12/02/2014 - 19:10":

Hi Jeremy

Given the explanations we now have I don't think this is an unfair contract term in the eyes of the law or that Dan has even been treated unfairly.

He obtained a home to live in with no deposit on a form of social housing scheme called "shared equity". The properties are developed purely for owner occupation and it appears that the scheme providers are actually bending over backwards to help Dan. They could very easily stick to the line of "no letting allowed" and there would be very little he could do about that, particularly as this was made very clear to him when he purchased the property by both the vendor/developer and was again re-stated by his legal advisers.

If you live in a modern house and check your deeds you will probably see a restrictive covenant which says you can't run a business from the property. Dan's situation is much the same, it's a perfectly legal restrictive covenant, inserted into his deeds for all the right reasons, i.e. so the affordable housing stock isn't all snapped up by us greedy capitalist landlords LOL

This is far more common in the USA by the way. There are zones for owner occupation, long term rental and short term vacation rental.
.

Jeremy Smith

19:54 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "12/02/2014 - 19:22":

Okey Dokey !!

Shared equity - yes, of course.
That seems a 'fair' explanation to me - Thank you Mark.

...greedy capitalist landlords indeed !... huh!

Daniel Ramsell

23:27 PM, 12th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Hi all, just to clarify, this clause is NOT in my title deeds due to myself having an equity loan with the developers, this is a clause in the title deeds of EVERY home owner (equity loan or not) on the new build development. I have had this confirmed by Places for People and I quote:
My question to Places for People: "A question I do have: Is the clause in the title deeds due to myself having an equity loan with yourselves, or would this clause have been placed into the deeds regardless of whether I had an equity loan with yourselves or not?"

Places for Peoples response: "The clause in your deeds is a clause that is common to all the freehold properties on site rather than one imposed because of your equity loan."

So I believe Jeremy's question still stands? 🙂

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

7:55 AM, 13th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Daniel Ramsell" at "12/02/2014 - 23:27":

That may be the case Daniel but it does appear to have been an "affordable housing" project. Therefore, the covenants may well have had something to do with planning or even a Joint Venture arrangement with a local authority who might have done a deal on the land or original building if if was a conversion or brownfield site.
.

Jeremy Smith

16:49 PM, 13th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/02/2014 - 07:55":

To my mind, all this clause seems to do is corner the market for this letting firm, excluding competition, collecting fees which would otherwise not be charged, and enabling the letting agent (themselves) to charge whatever commission they like..

If it is an affordable housing project, I suppose they could restrict the number of properties let out by landlords, but this seems unfair to those that ask 'late in the day' and get told 'NO' we have enough let out already!

Perhaps they should put a blanket ban on letting.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

16:59 PM, 13th February 2014, About 10 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jeremy Smith" at "13/02/2014 - 16:49":

I agree, they should stick to the restrictive covenants they added into the title deeds. grey areas cause problems as we all know only to well as landlords. I am, of course, referring about the Housing Act 1988 and subsequent amendments when I refer to "grey areas".
.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now