How to refurbish the bathroom without breaking the leasehold rules?

[harrison247]

Hi all, first-time poster here! My partner and I bought our first home last year, a long-lease maisonette, and we now hope to refurbish the bathroom. The alteration section of the lease reads as follows:

(13) Not at any time during the said term without the license in writing of the Lessor... to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette building hereby demised or in any of the party walls or the principal or bearing walls or timbers thereof...

The key bit is that no alterations in load-bearing walls can be made without a license from the lessor (i.e. freeholder). The cost of this license (plus a surveyor visit plus admin) would be over £3k, according to the freeholder's fees. Considering the other costs and benefits, this extra cost would not make the "ideal refurbishment" worth doing.

Our ideal refurbishment would involve 3 bits of work that relate to the walls.

1. Installing an extractor fan in the exterior wall of the bathroom. (This is a bearing wall, but a vent/grill already exists on the outside.)
2. Connecting the newly positioned toilet to the exterior soil pipe by passing this through the exterior wall.
3. Removing the interior walls of a coat room adjacent to the bathroom. We understand from contractors that these walls are not load bearing, and would get a surveyor to confirm this.

 

 

 

 

I feel points 1 and 3 are likely fine, no license needed, but point 2 is the one I am most unsure about. It depends on the definition of what constitutes an "alteration" to a wall: does creating a hole and feeding a new pipe through the wall count as an alteration, even if it doesn't change the overall size/look of the wall? (All works will be done by a suitably qualified contractor.) Surely it is quite common for people in leasehold properties to have holes drilled through exterior walls (e.g. for broadband cables or utilities), but is there no minimum threshold for what counts as an alteration?

Any ideas or suggestions much appreciated!

[joe90]

Intend to agree with you about 1/ and 2/ but 3/ is a “wall alteration” and the leaseholder will need “proof” it’s done properly which I guess is what this is about 

 

to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette 

 

what About approaching the leaseholder and asking directly with proof from a builder that the wall is not load bearing (and pointing out the added value of the property you are willing to pay for?

[harrison247]

25 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Intend to agree with you about 1/ and 2/ but 3/ is a “wall alteration” and the leaseholder will need “proof” it’s done properly which I guess is what this is about 

 

to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette 

 

what About approaching the leaseholder and asking directly with proof from a builder that the wall is not load bearing (and pointing out the added value of the property you are willing to pay for?

 

Thanks Joe. Yes, I could approach the freeholder to prove that that interior coat room wall (change 3) is not bearing. But if I confirm (e.g. with a surveyor) that it isn't bearing, then I guess that according to the lease I have no need to get consent/license from the freeholder to alter it. (Note that the "plan" of the maisonette in the lease is not an internal floor plan, it only shows the plan of the exterior walls.)

 

FYI I am the leaseholder, and the "lessor" who grants the license is the freeholder.

[joe90]

No harm in asking 🤷‍♂️

[kandgmitchell]

Could you not swap the wc and the basin so the new wc uses the existing wc waste (which I assume goes into the floor) and the basin uses the ex. basin waste route so no alteration at all to the external wall. If the cupboard wall is non-loadbearing then no need to involve the leaseholder.

[torre]

Could you mirror your proposed new layout so you enter through what is currently the cloakroom door? Then the toilet and its plumbing just turns through 90 degrees in the same corner as now.

[harrison247]

Okay, so I what I am now considering is adjusting the layout plan, attached. (Current layout on the left, potential new layout on the right.) This should not require license to alter, according to the rules of the lease.

This would involve:

1. Confirming with a surveyor that the coat room walls are indeed not bearing, and removing those internal walls to increase the floorspace.
2. Leaving the toilet in the top left of the room and putting the sink in the top right, which should mean that no new pipes need to be fitted through the exterior (bearing) wall. (The sink and bath can both feed into the current bath wastewater pipe.)

If I do this, my inclination would be not to inform the freeholder, as I do not believe I would need to do so under the lease (which only says altering bearing walls needs a license); if I did tell them, the worst case is that they could dispute it or say that that if I want any form of written consent then there will still be a charge.

But, when eventually selling the property, I would then need to state in the sale docs that works had been done in the property - in this situation it would be preferable to have some form of consent from the freeholder in case the buyer's solicitor questions this. Or am I over-thinking it? If the alteration is not prohibited by the lease and I have all the appropriate construction/surveyor documentation, surely that is enough for the buyer?

Plan B.pdf

[Mr Punter]

In my view the plan B scheme does not require freeholder consent.

 

Without intrusive works it will be difficult for the surveyor to conclusively establish if the wall is load bearing, but is is very unlikely.

 

I would just go ahead and get the work done.

[Temp]

5 hours ago, torre said:

Could you mirror your proposed new layout so you enter through what is currently the cloakroom door? Then the toilet and its plumbing just turns through 90 degrees in the same corner as now.

 

Think that's what I would do.

[kandgmitchell]

Now being put on the spot I've read that lease term again - it's in three parts:

 

(13) Not at any time during the said term without the license in writing of the Lessor... to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette building hereby demised or in any of the party walls or the principal or bearing walls or timbers thereof... (my emphasis).

 

So you cannot, without a licence make any alteration in plan or elevation, or make any alteration in plan of any of the party walls etc. Now I've added a comma in places and it makes it easier to read. The legal people avoid commas deliberately but it does make things harder to follow for the rest of us. 

 

That term can be read to mean that removing the cupboard walls is an alteration in plan of the maisonette building and thus needs a licence. If it was me I'd send a simple polite letter with a copy of your surveyors opinion and bathroom plan and make the point no loadbearing walls are involved without specifically referring to the lease - as a courtesy perhaps. See what comes back. If it's a "that looks nice - good luck" then I'd say that's your licence.

 

 

[harrison247]

12 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

Now being put on the spot I've read that lease term again - it's in three parts:

 

(13) Not at any time during the said term without the license in writing of the Lessor... to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette building hereby demised or in any of the party walls or the principal or bearing walls or timbers thereof... (my emphasis).

 

So you cannot, without a licence make any alteration in plan or elevation, or make any alteration in plan of any of the party walls etc. Now I've added a comma in places and it makes it easier to read. The legal people avoid commas deliberately but it does make things harder to follow for the rest of us. 

 

That term can be read to mean that removing the cupboard walls is an alteration in plan of the maisonette building and thus needs a licence. If it was me I'd send a simple polite letter with a copy of your surveyors opinion and bathroom plan and make the point no loadbearing walls are involved without specifically referring to the lease - as a courtesy perhaps. See what comes back. If it's a "that looks nice - good luck" then I'd say that's your licence.

 

 

True, however the only "plan" in the lease is not a room-by-room floorplan but rather a plan of the exterior boundary walls, as per the definition below. So this is perhaps further support that the license to alter is aimed more at extensions than alterations involving internal walls? My bathroom refurbishment certainly wouldn't change the lease plan at all 

 

 A lease plan defines the boundaries and areas included in a lease, while a floor plan shows the layout and dimensions of the property's interior.

[MikeGrahamT21]

Leasehold means they own the land, but you own the property that’s built on it from memory, definitely do your checks, but I don’t think the freeholder would have any input on internal works, however they would on the external look of the property. Every leasehold seems slightly different in one way or another though so get someone legal to look at it

[joe90]

Nah, crack on with it, you are improving the property and not reducing  the “land value” 🤷‍♂️