RHO Subletting Strategy - Riverside

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Is there anything you do not agree with? I don't understand why, for some Riverside properties, the lease would not allow you to make a decision on subletting. The regulations should apply to all RHO properties. I live in apartments where owners who sublet do not appear to be subjected to any conditions. This strategy does not appear to reflect the reality that a significant minority - possibly a majority - of homes on my development are currently sublet, presumably without explicit permission. When we paid for the property it was with the understanding we would not sublet, why all this, when it is in the deeds. If the resident has lived in the property for more than 3 years then they should be able to let the property. Then it is clear that the property was not purchased for immediate profit. Subletting is for only 12months - why? Suggestions for Improvement Clear definition needs to be given of the circumstances where permission will be granted. This seems vague at the moment and will be at discretion of Riverside. Two similar cases could be given different answers depending on who is reviewing the case. For me, the leaflet does not make it clear what fee a leaseholder pays if they are not in shared ownership. It would be clearer if the leaflet said what the fees are, which given that it is reviewed annually, it should be possible. I suspect the strategy is at odds with the practice of a number of leaseholders on my development, it might be wise to launch a wider consultation prior to enforcing the policy - assuming the intention is to enforce it rather than simply to confirm with guidelines issued by central or local government, or existing lease terms. It is quite obvious that many occupiers of sublet properties do not understand Riverside housing basic rules either a) the owner has not informed them b) they do not simply observe them. Make it clear if this policy applies to shared ownership and/or home owners. Make sure subletting is for a longer period. More targeting on the objectives. Reads more like a policy than a strategy. No mention of provision to mitigate negative impacts of EIA/Equality Analysis that I assume has been completed on the strategy. Where the property sub-let proceeds for no longer than 5 years, to enable an appropriate sum of money to be put into the sinking fund of that development. As if the property had been sold at that juncture. You make no mention of what action would be taken where those tenants prove to be nuisance neighbours. This happened to me from 2009 to 2011. Business Information and Research 2012 2
Additional Comments How does this affect a property that is up for sale? I think this is a positive action that meets leaseholder requirements in current climate. It is not clear if this applies only to shared ownership or home owners. Please bear in mind subletting is not an evil practice. E.g. in Hulme there are many students where renting is the only option. By enforcing this strategy you will decrease rentable stock, increase rents and devastate communities. The main problem seems to be two fold regarding tenants of owner sublets a) they have no direct line to Riverside b) some owners do seem to care. Where a development of flats, with or without shared ownership, relies on sales of flats to build up their sinking fund, it needs special attention when considering sub-letting, should be paid to not allowing long periods of subletting, otherwise it could take years before a flat is sold and funds put into the sinking fund of that development. After a period of lettings - say 5 years, the property should be treated as having been sold and the appropriate sum put into the relevant sinking fund. Yes something in writing re nuisance tenants. Business Information and Research 2012 3
Page 1: ‘Count Me In’ Policy Consultati

RHO Subletting Strategy - Riverside

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?