Old apartment lease coming back to bite

Lantus

Changing the primary contract lease is technically possible but would require massive legal processes.

This is the contract every unit owner signs when they buy a property.

To be changed it requires consent from every member and if I recall correctly a visit to court as per the mud act.

Every contract would need to be reassigned and the legal bill would be in the tens of thousands.

You cannot leave someone out.

To do this for an attic issue makes no sense. Are you sure your talking about the contract lease and not the articles of association?

Lantus

It's section 24. The court can direct changed to be made to legal documentation where disputes arise.

Did you get such a court order?

Metric Tensor

The apartment block almost certainly has a fire safety certificate. Any internal changes to any of the apartments make the building non-compliant with the fire safety certificate.

If the leasee makes changes he will be required to either get written confirmation from the fire officer that the fire safety certificate is still valid or obtain a new fire safety certificate for the entire building. He will also need to pay for any upgrades across the building to facilitate this new certificate.

This is completely separate from planning permission and could get very expensive.

He will be breaking the law if he makes material alterations that do not comply with the fire safety certificate - I'd imagine the management company will also bear some responsibility for allowing it.

Both parties here need to engage a construction consultant (engineer, architect, etc.)

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Did a management Company AGM agree to amend the terms of the original lease and is a majority sufficient to do this?

If so, it would seem that everybodies lease is changed, including the apartment owned by the deceased member. It sounds bizarre that the management company would effectively negotiate different lease terms for the various apartments, which is what you say seems to have happened.

You need clear legal advice on the 'new lease' situation and what was done then.

If the new owners do in fact have rights to convert their attic space, you should not refuse them, but make asure you have guarantees regarding the structural integrity of the roof. I'm not sure what these would be but I imagine undertakings from suitably insured professionals would be the way to go.

It has to be unaminous- it cannot be a simple majority- and similarly- the management company cannot take away any rights that the current owner has in their lease.

OP- I'm not a solicitor- however, I firmly believe that if you choose to fight this- you are very likely to loose. You cannot impose a new lease on the person who has just bought the property- they have to agree to it- and if you were planning on imposing a change in the lease- it should have been done before the current owner purchased the unit.

Also- the owner may be entitled to do an attic conversion- without planning permission- depending on the nature of the conversion- providing it is in keeping with current building regs (and keep in mind- if they're not planning on making a formal bedroom- their requirements are a lot lower..........)

I'd suggest you work with them- and I'd also suggest you have a little chat with a solicitor and see what your options are- but I do not believe you have a foot to stand on here........... *I am not a solicitor and am not offering this advice in a professional capacity- please do not construe it as such.

Lantus

The_Conductor wrote:

It has to be unaminous- it cannot be a simple majority- and similarly- the management company cannot take away any rights that the current owner has in their lease.

It's more than just a gentleman's agreement. The primary contract lease is a major legal contractural document. Any change would need to be written by a suitably qualified legal team and solicitors would need to witness the signing of every new contract as they would of done the first time. Probably would need separate legal teams as omc and owners are separate entities in the contract. Some cost.

The op isn't clear but it sounds like a few paragraphs were knocked up on word and posted out.

You only need one owner to object and then your in court to get a ruling. Super expensive.

You did not have the consent of every owner to make this change and subject to your own legal advice I would say those changes are null and void and have zero standing.

The owner has a legally binding contract and I would be confident it would stand firm if challenged in court unless you can provide any information or clarity to counter.

If someone rocked up to my gaff with a new contract that said thou shalt not build on a Tuesday if laugh my head off.

Contracts cannot be unilaterally changed by one party and especially not to their benefit.

Did every apartment owner with an attic vote to approve having them taken away? Unlikely.

This is the stuff of nonsense.

The_Conductor

+1 to everything Lantus has said.
It is a modification to a legal document.
Everyone has to agree to it- and it then has to be effected by a legal modification of leases by a solicitor- who cannot act on behalf of both the management company and its members- and it has to be signed off on by all concerned.

Its pretty much impossible to do (I've tried in one development- over something less contentious than your idea).

Its a bit of a mess.

In this instance- I would work with the owner of the unit and do my best to try and ensure building regs were complied with- however, if planning is not a requirement (and it may not be)- suggesting you're going to appeal any decision is pointless- and moot.

SnakePlissken

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do they need planning permission.

It's important to note that the attic space can be converted for storage but it's against the building regulations to convert it to a bedroom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I can't add to that as I just don't know but they can't use it as a bedroom.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In a house you can't get planning permission for a bedroom in the attic space as it's against the building regulations. I have don't know if it's the same for topics floor apartments but if they get permission to convert it most likely won't be for a bedroom.

I have no idea where you're gleaning this information from but it is wholly incorrect.

Planning permission can and will be granted for use of attic space as a bedroom/habitable space once a number of criteria is met, namely that at a minimum 2/3rds of the proposed space has a clear ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

There's a number of further stipulations concerning Part K and particularly Part B of the Building regulations, but to suggest that it is impossible to gain permission to use attic space as a bedroom is both misleading and groundless.

Lantus

SnakePlissken wrote:

Planning permission can and will be granted for use of attic space as a bedroom/habitable space once a number of criteria is met, namely that at a minimum 2/3rds of the proposed space has a clear ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

In most cases you don't even need planning. Unless the front of the property is altered or roof then just proceed.

The required ceiling heights are required to class the space as a room. Below this it's just a space and cannot be classified as a bedroom, or any type of room. It's not so much a planning issue but a physical constraint.

It's a simple enough change building wise with minimal building changes and regs. Some fire stuff to consider. A good solution where people need to expand. If done well will increase value to property and area as a whole.

touchdown77

OP, if the attic conversion goes ahead you'll need to consider the following

the apartment owner will need to prove that any changes are made in compliance with;

• Planning permission
• Fire regulations
• Building regulations

i.e. they will get an engineer/surveyor/architect to provide certification on each heading above

then as a director of the OMC, you'll need to ensure ensure the same as above, (but independent of the apartment owner) so the OMC will need to engage its own engineer/surveyor/architect to certify the work.
This will ensure that both parties i.e. apartment owner and OMC (i.e. all the other owners) are fully protected and the works are comply in each parties interest.

Gumbo

Planning Permission
Fire Safety Certificate
Disability Access certificate

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

Lantus

kceire wrote:

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

This would be the case if the lease prohibits such works.

If it denotes the attic as the owners space then omc consent is not necessarily required.

Sometimes the top floor unit owns the roof. Without seeing this lease and with only a few cursory interpretations the statements are generally correct but not necessarily applicable in this case.

Can the op provide more info on the supposed lease re- assignment and what it originally said.

It should contain several pages as well as definitions on the reserved and demised property near the start. Roof spaces and structure should be fairly well outlined.

Black_Fire

Thanks to each contributed here. I have asked the long lease holder to return their existing lease to us for inspection and I'm meeting with a past director to discuss the exact reason for the change of lease. They mentioned that there were actual proceedings to remove a previous management company from their post over a decade ago who in fact were the owners in the upper floor apartment, the subject of this thread. This explains how the attic space was delineated on the land registry. They were not maintaining the property correctly as such and the case ended up before the high court to change management company forcefully. They retained their lease as they did not agree to sign themselves in to the new management rules whereby the rest of the apartment owners did. That original lease therefore has been changed into the hands of the new owners who intend to proceed with the conversion. We'll have to seek more legal advise on this as it's an obvious mess. It seems they are within their rights to an extent but so are we, as the new management company, to stand firm to protect the overall structure from rogue conversions.

This is the kind of crap that puts people off living in apartments. Owner owns the attic and want to make use of its space but the managment company want to be awkward and interfere to stop the person making use of the valuable extra space that they own.

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs". What evidence do you have that is making you think this could cause problems with the roof anyway, its just an excuse for trying to be awkward imo.

Melissa Flaky Tux

Melissa Flaky Tux wrote: »

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs".

The OP is a director of the management company. They are supposed to think about the consequences and could be personally exposed if something happened and they were subsequently found not to have acted in the best interests of the company or whatever.

Lantus

Thanks for update blackfire. I think you've partially answered your own question.

If one (could of been more) members opt out of any lease change. Has it really been enacted?

I don't believe the high court ruling covered this, it looks like something extra that was attempted as a result.

Needs some good legal advice.

Franz Von Peppercorn

kceire wrote: »

Planning Permission
Fire Safety Certificate
Disability Access certificate

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

Disability for a private apartment?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Melissa Flaky Tux wrote: »

This is the kind of crap that puts people off living in apartments. Owner owns the attic and want to make use of its space but the managment company want to be awkward and interfere to stop the person making use of the valuable extra space that they own.

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs". What evidence do you have that is making you think this could cause problems with the roof anyway, its just an excuse for trying to be awkward imo.

Well obviously one mans floor is another mans ceiling so it can’t be as simple as a detached house.

It’s interesting how much more difficult it is for an attic conversion than a terraced house, or a semi detached though. Well from what I am reading.

em_cat

Black_Fire wrote: »

Thanks to each contributed here. I have asked the long lease holder to return their existing lease to us for inspection and I'm meeting with a past director to discuss the exact reason for the change of lease. They mentioned that there were actual proceedings to remove a previous management company from their post over a decade ago who in fact were the owners in the upper floor apartment, the subject of this thread. This explains how the attic space was delineated on the land registry. They were not maintaining the property correctly as such and the case ended up before the high court to change management company forcefully. They retained their lease as they did not agree to sign themselves in to the new management rules whereby the rest of the apartment owners did. That original lease therefore has been changed into the hands of the new owners who intend to proceed with the conversion. We'll have to seek more legal advise on this as it's an obvious mess. It seems they are within their rights to an extent but so are we, as the new management company, to stand firm to protect the overall structure from rogue conversions.

Sorry to just pop in here, but firstly (a) what is a "long leaseholder"?

Secondly (b) this issue falls under Property Contract Law which is extremely costly and is difficult to navigate without a really good PCL solicitor.

Lastly (c) the property in question, if it was originally owned by the OMC entity and then sold to a private buyer and the contracts where not updated and everything signed off via conveyancing, then the OMC is truly at fault and should not be pursuing the new owner to sign a new contract just because the OMC, for all intents and purposes screwed the pooch, it seems vexatious to me.

The OMC would be better off making sure that whatever restrictions/clauses that are in the original contract be adhered too.

Lord Glentoran

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Why not let people live and do what they want with their attic? Is it jealousy? I could never comprehend all that "not allowed this not allowed that" nonsense with the management companies. Does it make any impact on other people living in the apartments?
After experiencing management companies and people attitudes in them (little people on high horse comes to mind) I decided to never be a part of Mgmt Co, like many others

Beggars on horseback. I've had enough dealings with a management company to ensure that when I sell my maisonette (ie, own front door, no common areas except grass and parking) I'll never own anything in the Republic again that has that encroachment on it.

Marcusm

Lantus wrote: »

In most cases you don't even need planning. Unless the front of the property is altered or roof then just proceed.

The required ceiling heights are required to class the space as a room. Below this it's just a space and cannot be classified as a bedroom, or any type of room. It's not so much a planning issue but a physical constraint.

It's a simple enough change building wise with minimal building changes and regs. Some fire stuff to consider. A good solution where people need to expand. If done well will increase value to property and area as a whole.

Exempt development does not apply to a multi unit property. Any “development” requires full planning permission.

Marcusm

Melissa Flaky Tux wrote: »

This is the kind of crap that puts people off living in apartments. Owner owns the attic and want to make use of its space but the managment company want to be awkward and interfere to stop the person making use of the valuable extra space that they own.

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs". What evidence do you have that is making you think this could cause problems with the roof anyway, its just an excuse for trying to be awkward imo.

The roof is a covering for all of the dwellings; this is why it is not generally permitted to any one unit holder to make alterations to it.

Metric Tensor

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Disability for a private apartment?

Disability Access Certificate for the entire building which was granted based on the current layout so once the layout is changed, no matter how insignificantly a new DAC is required for the WHOLE building.

"Disability" in this context does not mean "in a wheelchair" - it can cover everything from pregnant women, to those with poor eyesight. The technical guidance documents for ease of access and egress apply to all buildings but not all need a DAC - although this one does. The DAC is heavily linked to escape in emergencies and if you add an extra storey you significantly increase the escape routes for people in the new upper storey - hence the need for new a Fire Safety certificate too.

Gumbo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Disability for a private apartment?

Yes. Mandatory once a fire safety cert is required since 2011.
But, it will be a paper exercise as the apartment owner cannot make any modifications outside the envelope of his apartment. But nonetheless, the application still needs to be made and drawings submitted outlining ownership and lack of ownership.