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.