The same wording in the lease appears in a large number of LSVT leases, which were developed at about the same time. This is a consequence of the fact that the new owners of LSVT were designed to ensure that their transferred tenants were no less well off by LSVT, which included conditions relating to how the owner could recover the property. In essence, the new landlord stated that it would only attempt to reclaim the property for a number of discretionary reasons in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, which effectively reflect those that could be used against safe tenants, and therefore none of the compelling reasons were considered. However, the position on compelling reasons has changed in light of the equivalent of Ground 7A introduced by Section 84A of the Housing Act of 1985. The lease lists reasons 7, 9, 10-14, 14A, 15 and 16, the rotmilanes striving to recover the property, that is, the one invoked at the time of the arrival of the lease. Longer-term agreed goal – In other cases, it may be easy to convince the municipality to give up its right to future revenues under one or more agreements, in exchange for the housing company agreeing to use the revenue for agreed purposes (for example, we have worked with housing companies that have agreed to commit revenues to finance new affordable housing in the municipality). , for community purposes or for the provision or redevelopment of temporary accommodation (the latter are potentially attractive to a municipality due to the increasing demand for temporary housing and costs). This, of course, requires a desire for creativity and a long-term partnership that works on both sides – but, given the ever-increasing cost of temporary housing, we believe that many local authorities would be willing to consider proposals that have sacrificed revenue (perhaps uncertain) in order to achieve long-term income savings. It is also worth remembering that new affordable housing is an increasing political priority, and local members are often eager to find new ways to increase affordable housing. Joint-Venture-Wohnungsgesellschaft – As a variant of the previous model, the parties could attempt to create a joint and local housing company in order to invest their share of the revenue in this housing company; Although this is not necessarily the optimal result for the housing company, it would achieve the objectives of creating more housing (regardless of rent) and the housing company could also benefit from the provision of development services to the joint venture.
The option can also be attractive to institutions by providing a permanent source of income for the joint venture. Renegotiate an agreement If negotiations for a renegotiation of a sharing agreement continue, it is likely that the housing company will need the lender`s approval for the amendments; either because existing loan contracts require that changes be made only to agreements with the lender`s agreement, or because the revised terms affect the housing company`s business plan (which may be subject to separate consent).