As I said , most. If it is unusually large and could be reconfigured to add another bedroom while ensuring compliance with minimum size regs then it's a runner. Simply squeezing in an en-suite is unlikely to qualify.
As I said , most. If it is unusually large and could be reconfigured to add another bedroom while ensuring compliance with minimum size regs then it's a runner. Simply squeezing in an en-suite is unlikely to qualify.It very much depends on the property; but I do know of some property owners who have reconfigured apartments. Non-purpose built is easier.
That's an interesting thought because there's only one bathroom.As I said , most. If it is unusually large and could be reconfigured to add another bedroom while ensuring compliance with minimum size regs then it's a runner. Simply squeezing in an en-suite is unlikely to qualify.
Hmmm, just considering your question... I did not request legal advice on the specific question of RPZ rules applying to the type of tenant (U.S. corp in this instance). However, the management (letting) company we have used for 10+ years manage well in excess of 1,000 units on behalf of small landlords such as myself. They are not an auctioneering business, they focus on lettings only. I want to check myself saying this but.... I would expect them to "know" the RPZ rules... but I will put this question to our solicitor and revert next week once he has responded.I am not saying your property management company or accountant are wrong about this but it is the easy thing for them to say, no danger to them there.
When you say that's the advice you have received, did they put it to you in writing that Corporate Letting is not exempt from RPZ rules, or did they just suck in their upper lip and say, 'I don't think that would work'.
I would ask what is the legal basis for the advice. Then you will know if it is soundly based or just an excess of caution.
I think you are right. If there is a landlord and a tenant, then the property is subject to the RPZ rules. It doesn't matter whether the tenant is an individual or a company. I know that the multinational won't be the occupant, but the property is leased to them for use by their staff. They are the tenant.Hmmm, just considering your question... I did not request legal advice on the specific question of RPZ rules applying to the type of tenant (U.S. corp in this instance). However, the management (letting) company we have used for 10+ years manage well in excess of 1,000 units on behalf of small landlords such as myself. They are not an auctioneering business, they focus on lettings only. I want to check myself saying this but.... I would expect them to "know" the RPZ rules... but I will put this question to our solicitor and revert next week once he has responded.
I discovered that if I'm adding valueWhat level is refurb is needed?
And in the rtb website there is an option
"Exceed rpz?"
Let's say person increased the value sufficiently, do you click yes?
Or how does that work?
Be wary of this, people have reported getting incorrect information from such agencies here in the past. The agency you use may be better informed of course, but ultimately it is you who are legally responsible for ensuring compliance.They are not an auctioneering business, they focus on lettings only. I want to check myself saying this but.... I would expect them to "know" the RPZ rules... but I will put this question to our solicitor and revert next week once he has responded.
I used an estate agent and a solicitor for a termination of tenancy a few years back.Be wary of this, people have reported getting incorrect information from such agencies here in the past.
It might make lives easier for then no doubt, but, there's a good chance the RTB won't see it as sufficient to allow a derogation. You would be need to provide evidence that a similar apartment with one of the bedrooms much reduced in size, but accommodating an en-suite would have attracted a significantly larger rent at the time of letting.Adding another bathroom, an en suite would be a big improvement. The tenants could have a bathroom each.
Yeah, the law is complicated, more so than would be ideal, but being a landlord is a business and complex legalities are part and parcel of running many businesses.The law (intentionally or not) puts an excessive regulatory burden on landlords.
To be clear, we fully adbide by the onerous RPZ rules in our corporate lettings.... its the orignal poster who posted the assumption that corporate lets are not subject to RPZ rules.Be wary of this, people have reported getting incorrect information from such agencies here in the past. The agency you use may be better informed of course, but ultimately it is you who are legally responsible for ensuring compliance.
Usually people move in their large adult children to do this. They get a place to live while saving for a deposit, and then the landlord either sells or returns to the normal rental market at whatever price they can get.A solution is to find a trusted friend or family member to act as caretaker for two years.
For example they pay all bills in return for minding the property. They are legally your licensee and you would have free access to the property. No RTB registration needed.
In 24 months you are free to return to market rent.
This is listed on RTB site and it is no longer simply a matter or adding an ensuite.I discovered that if I'm adding value
Then I click "Y" evening RPZ threshold
Then there's a PDF to be filled out with the details of the additional value
They would not. See my post above.It might make lives easier for then no doubt, but, there's a good chance the RTB won't see it as sufficient to allow a derogation. You would be need to provide evidence that a similar apartment with one of the bedrooms much reduced in size, but accommodating an en-suite would have attracted a significantly larger rent at the time of letting.
You either substantially extend the building or unit to be a larger building or you carry out extensive changes, internal reconfiguration to change number of rooms, increase the BER rating by 3 points or more (2 if above already a C3) AND either increase number of rooms or adapt for a person with a disability. "Refurbishment" does not count as that is (usually correctly) considered by RTB to be carrying out essential maintenance that should have been done anyway as part of the general maintenance of the property. Again - see list above. Far lower criteria existed in the past & that may be why an agency believes the old rules still apply. Simply adding a bathroom won't qualify - however, adding a bathroom, making the entire unit disability friendly AND carrying out a full energy upgrade taking the unit from C3 to C1 would qualify. In short, the kind of works that would make it an entirely different unit to the one there now.What level is refurb is needed?
And in the rtb website there is an option
"Exceed rpz?"
Let's say person increased the value sufficiently, do you click yes?
Or how does that work?
You could do so, then discover halfway through that ARP is withdrawn and/or some change in status. Or you could find sustained pressure on govt to regularise such arrangements to normal tenancies goes into legislation. Leaving it vacant for 2 years won't trip you up if you REALLY want to hike the rent up.Look into giving it to Ukrainians and claiming ARP (although it might not be around for the full two years). That arrangement doesn't necessarily constitute a tenancy as far as I know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?