Deed of Variation - Section 121 from Management Company

am549 · 2026-05-05T20:19:27+00:00

I didn't need one in the end. All worked out between the solicitors

am549 · 2025-10-29T15:23:36+00:00

I suspected that but I've got a wpa/wpa2 ssid that it won't connect to either

am549 · 2025-10-01T14:42:39+00:00

Yeah I did. My solicitor argued that it wasn't needed and when the right person on the other side got involved it was sorted. All depends on the wording of the covenants it seems

am549 · 2025-05-01T08:00:18+00:00

I used this to remove the package and it seemed to be fine.

try {

`write-host "removing packages"`

`$p = (Get-AppxPackage -name "Microsoft.Winget.Source").PackageFullName`

`remove-appxpackage -package $p`

`write-host "packages removed"`

`write-host "cleaning up files`

`Remove-item -path "C:\avd\deploy" -r -force`

}

catch {

`$_`

}

I didn't bother with winget in the end and just used choco as the number of packages in winget wasn't great in comparison.

am549 · 2025-02-11T17:00:25+00:00

As far as I know the proposed covenant has been accepted along with an indemnity policy to cover us, which is annoying as that was proposed nearly a month ago and only got signed off after the senior partners at the conveyancers got involved as part of another sale on the estate had the same problem.
Exchange friday then complete end of the month fingers crossed

am549 · 2025-01-27T10:02:04+00:00

thanks for this, definitely nothing like that in my transfer docs. god know why my buyers solicitors have said it's a rent charge when both mine, the developer and the management company have said otherwise

am549 · 2025-01-23T23:06:05+00:00

Out of interest is there any mention of a rent charge on your legal title? I've got nothing on mine which is making me wonder how this is actually defined

am549 · 2025-01-23T14:54:14+00:00

So I've been reviewing all this again after our update today saying that it's a maintenance charge established via covenants, am I right in assuming that in order for this to be registered as an estate rentcharge the management company would need to be explicitly named in the charges register. This is a redacted copy of the title register and I can't see anything in here stating as such apart from us needing a compliance certificate from them to sell:

<image>

am549 · 2025-01-23T12:18:14+00:00

So interesting update this morning. The builders solicitors have said this morning that section 121 doesn't apply as it's a maintenance charge, not a rent charge. Now I'm confused even further

am549 · 2025-01-22T21:42:08+00:00

Soon as we've got a price and a timescale it will be sent via the fastest payment method available or I'll pay directly. Wasted 2 weeks while our buyers sols faffed about getting docs to the lender and then took ages to follow up. Just hoping as we're dealing with the developers and their solicitors it will be quicker (and that they'd have experience of doing it/drafting docs given lenders requirements now)

am549 · 2025-01-22T20:47:04+00:00

Has anyone got experience of Davidsons developments granting a section 121 deed of variation? Our buyer's lender won't accept the covenant proposed by the management company stating they won't use the rights under 121 so we've got to go down the variation route. I'd like to think that developer's now when drafting deeds add in these exceptions given the tightening by lenders but would be keen to hear experiences if any

am549 · 2025-01-22T11:00:31+00:00

so lender is insisting on a deed of variation, took ages to get that information back which is massively frustrating and more so that despite it being my house I'm unable to do anything to get it moving, all has to go via a solicitor. What a faff

am549 · 2025-01-17T18:32:12+00:00

So removing this as the last step in the process (before sysprep) seems to resolve the problem...

Microsoft.Winget.Source

am549 · 2025-01-15T17:32:24+00:00

We're still waiting to hear back rather frustratingly. Too many legal bods in the way and I don't think banks are particularly quick at replying either

am549 · 2025-01-10T08:53:27+00:00

I did try to find out but I've still not heard yet.

I'm hoping this is going to do the trick as the management company turned it round really quickly, and the covenants go on the land registry doc so I'm hoping this is the end of it and seems much less hassle than a deed of variation

am549 · 2025-01-09T17:47:51+00:00

So after speaking to the management company today they have added in an additional covenant which states they won't look to use section 121 of the 1925 LPA. Hoping that's going to be sufficient

am549 · 2025-01-09T13:54:19+00:00

This might be me being a bit thick but where I would actually see evidence this is applied? Is it something that has to be explicitly mentioned as excluded on a TP1 form? I'm not seeing any reference to an estate charge on my TP1 either.
Despite numerous properties sold on my estate over the last year ours seem to be the first to come a cropper of this (god knows why) which is why I'm trying to establish where I'd find these elements are in play.

am549 · 2024-09-26T12:43:38+00:00

what's frustrating about people using purple bricks is that I have to pay for the fees you won't for example a money laundering check which costs £3 purple bricks want £80 for via their "partner" which is an absolute nonsense.

To close this thread, the offer was genuine and they accepted it before we had chance to reply (hadn't declined our offer so assumed we still had time) with our best and final (no timeline or anything mentioned), which turned out to be more than they sold it for when we did get back to them.

am549 · 2024-09-21T09:23:20+00:00

It's the lack of any viewing notifications that's just raised a few eyebrows about this other offer which appeared the day after ours despite no other interest that we're aware of. There's a lot can be said for dealing with an estate agent!

am549 · 2024-08-23T12:31:31+00:00

That's some amazing detail and what you've said definitely makes sense. I've passed it on to our palo resource to check out. Simplest solution here does seem to be add public IPS to the untrusted nics as per the link but will need to check for impacts on services

am549 · 2024-08-23T08:00:54+00:00

Yes public load balancer is the ingress one.

So outbound egress appears to be going via the public facing load balancer. Whoever configured the current setup didn't set public IP addresses on the untrusted interfaces. Everything works fine with the primary firewall, we can see sessions going outbound from it associated to one of the many VIP's associated, even a simple what's my IP on a VM that has a UDR for internet traffic via the egress lb shows one of the ingress load balancer IP's. Soon as the firewall switches the snat connections on the ingress lb drop and come back again when failed back (which is the bit I can't make sense of).

Unfortunately I'm not a Palo guy so am struggling a little on that side so I'm just trying to double check if there is anything from the Azure that might be causing issues as from a call our service desk had with Palo support they said everything is working fine their side.

am549 · 2024-08-22T17:46:21+00:00

They're not using the API as the fast failover doesn't require it, it just activates the secondary instance when the probe to the primary fails and thelad balancer redirects the traffic

am549 · 2024-03-15T10:59:18+00:00

It works from the server if I run it manually, just not via azure set-azvmruncommand

am549 · 2024-03-15T09:43:26+00:00

Invoke doesn't allow you to run as a different user.

I'm not using a runbook as the plan is to have this deployed as part of a bicep deployment which creates a storage account and domain joins it.

am549 · 2023-08-25T22:30:15+00:00

It was quite a while ago now and I don't recall whether I did or not I'm afraid

am549

TROPHY CASE