SMF - Just Installed!

No consent to let needed, but should I still let freeholder know?

Started by kergey, January 07, 2016, 10:25:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kergey

Hi guys,

According to my lease, I do not need to obtain consent to let from my landlord/freeholder.

However, should I still let them know? My concern is that they hold the buildings insurance and I wonder whether they need to know that I am renting to update their insurance policy. Or can I assume that, given consent to let is not required in the lease, their buildings insurance policy probably already covers the possibility that the properties in the building can be tenanted.

Thanks!

K

Hippogriff

I have an apartment in a block of 288, I never advised the freeholder that I would let it out. For me it was obvious as the building is permeated by people renting - students, professionals - and owner occupiers are definitely in the minority. Yet I would normally advise someone to never assume anything, though. It can come back and bite you.

theangrylandlord

#2
Always be wary of advice from a forum (especially my own)
Do your own research

According to LTA 1985 the Landlord has to provide you a copy of the insurance if you demand it. (I assume you are charged for the insurance)
You could ask for it to set you mind at ease without indicating you want to sublet...if you so desired.

Best of luck