At Your Service

Concierges in luxury developments lift the lid on the demands of their super-rich clients — but have we reached ‘peak amenity’?

A bath full of honey? No problem. A fleet of sports cars transported by jet overseas? Sure. A Hermès Birkin bag in less than 24 hours? Leave it with me.

The requests that the concierges at the UK’s most expensive residences have to deal with are unusual, to say the least. “We are their pocket PAs,” says Lydia Varaona, the director of residences at the Peninsula, a luxury development next to Hyde Park where apartments are reported to cost up to £100 million.

“It is like we are part of their household and they can dial us whenever they want.” One of the residents once called Varaona from a hotel room overseas and asked her to have room service come and pick up his plate. Is it ever annoying? “No, it’s so fun, we find it really endearing,” she says — despite being called from all over the world at any time of day or night by the owners of the Peninsula’s 24 apartments.

According to the Land Registry, the owners include Todd Boehly, the American chairman of Chelsea FC; the Chinese automotive tycoon Chun Kiu Mak; and Sarath Ratanavadi, the chief executive of Thailand’s Gulf Energy Development.

“The majority of my colleagues have a background in hotels or residences,” Varaona says — she used to look after the equally picky owners of One Hyde Park in Knightsbridge. Unlike hotel residents, however, the owners at these developments stay for long periods at a time and return again and again. This means learning their individual preferences, from how they take their coffee to which newspaper they read and when.

The residents have their own pool, gym and spa, and access to all the hotel services, from an in-house chocolatier to private chefs. “Nothing seems weird. We’ve delivered specially crafted menus for owners and pets, cooked someone’s grandma’s cookie recipe for them, shipped a collection of sports cars to the south of France for a summer break, and found a seamstress in the middle of the night to alter a dress,” Varaona says.

It is the little things that impress most, though. Varaona and her team often take care of paying for an owner’s TV license, council tax, congestion charges, set up their broadband and organize their mode of transport.

Sylvain Bunel, the general manager at Regent’s Crescent, a high-end development in a redeveloped John Nash designed terrace next to Regent’s Park, says: “The true essence of our service lies in our ability to assist with mundane tasks. Residents rely on our team for various tasks, ranging from grocery shopping to finding a handyman. These activities form the backbone of our service and contribute significantly to our residents’ quality of life.

” At the Bryanston, a luxury tower of 54 apartments next to Marble Arch, the general manager, Hugo Pena, reports that “dogs are regularly towel dried by a member of the team after walks in the rain and then make a beeline for the concierge desk, where they know they’ll be given a treat”. “There are occasions when they ask for something that is not possible, like membership to Annabel’s,” says Dean Main, the founding partner of Rhodium, a super-prime management and consultancy firm that runs services for developments around the world, including the Bryanston.

But they did manage to bag a Hermès Birkin within 24 hours, organize a video meet-and greet with Justin Bieber and fly a pony out to St Tropez for a child’s birthday. More ordinary requests include organizing personal trainers, spa treatments, caring for pets, finding Michelin-starred personal chefs, sourcing artworks and PA support. For these Main’s staff have access to the company’s extensive black book of contacts. “We can get chefs from places like Nobu and Koya to come when they’re not working,” he says. A resident in a Rhodium managed Knightsbridge apartment asked whether the plumbing could handle a bath full of honey that his partner wanted as a spa treatment.

The plumbing, he was told, could cope. Of course all the requests, from the mundane to the ridiculous, are paid for by the residents — much of it via the steep service charges they pay. Roarie Scarisbrick, a partner at Property Vision, which finds properties for ultra-wealthy clients, says service charges at the £10 million-plus flats and homes he sources are usually between £15 and £20 a square foot — a 50 per cent increase on a decade ago. A £20 service charge for a 3,500 sq ft apartment would cost you £70,000 a year. Scarisbrick says service charges now often go even higher — although the top-end developments tend to be coy about how much they ask for.

Tom Rundall, a partner in the prime central London developments team at the estate agency Knight Frank, says the three biggest factors contributing to the service charge are building insurance, utilities and staff costs. “The costs on all of those have gone up. So, funnily enough, whether you’ve got a 25m pool, a cinema room or a boardroom doesn’t make a huge amount of difference.

It’s the actual staffing costs that is a killer. As soon as you go for 24-hour security and concierge the service charge goes whizzing up,” he says. “But if you had to employ those people in your own private household, then you’re going to pay a housekeeper, you’ve got to pay a gardener, you’ve got all the building maintenance that we all have — actually it’s more than a service charge. And I know that for [most people] the numbers are bonkers. But for the global elite it weirdly makes more sense to go into these buildings and just pay your one-off cost and you’ve got everything.”

Scarisbrick suggests, however, that we may soon be reaching “peak amenity”. He says: “Where does it all end when every swimming pool has to be a metre longer than the last? When will we reach peak opulence? “The finishes I see are getting more and more luxurious, with every surface excavated from some specialist quarry or carved from the rarest tree. I used to gasp at the best book-matched marble but now I’m immune.”

Source: The Times

Understanding the nature of sublease

“Any blockhead can arrange a sublet. All I ever wanted was to support myself on art,” said frustrated visual artist Walter Keane, who claimed to have painted the images of wide-eyed children actually painted by his then-wife, Margaret Keane.

Despite (or because of) this oversimplified view of a sublet or sublease agreement, it can be the source of conflict between the contracting parties, as shown in the cases decided by the Supreme Court below. Understanding the nature and legalities concerning this agreement is thus key.

In Mallarte v. Court of Appeals, for instance, Spouses Nicolas and Ramona Gopiao leased to Vicente Mallarte a certain apartment on a monthly basis. In this regard, the parties stipulated in their corresponding agreement that Mallarate was prohibited from subleasing or otherwise transferring to another the leased premises, or any portion thereof, without Spouses Gopiao’s prior written consent. Failure to comply with this provision shall be ground for Mallarte’s ejectment therefrom.

During one of their routine inspections, Spouses Gopiao discovered that Mallarte had converted certain areas of the apartment into bed spaces for eight boarders. Thinking that Mallarte had violated the pertinent provision of their agreement, Spouses Gopiao demanded him to vacate the leased premises. He refused to do so, constraining Spouses Gopiao to file an ejectment suit against him before the then City Court.

Meanwhile, Mallarte argued that the boarders were his nephew, nieces, grandchildren and other relatives who had been studying at a nearby university. Moreover, he accused Spouses Gopiao of filing the instant suit because he had refused to pay the increased rent.

This case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Mallarte. It held that accepting boarders was not tantamount to a sublease agreement, which necessitated the lessee to surrender his control and possession of the leased premises or any part thereof.

Meanwhile, the sublessee rents from the lessee the same premises for a term less than that stated in the lease agreement.

While a lessee may be expressly restricted from subleasing the premises in the lease agreement, the Supreme Court held that it effectively restrains alienation and is, thus, looked with disfavor by the courts.

In this case, Mallarte remained the actual occupant and possessor of the leased apartment. He merely accepted his relatives as boarders therein and assigned them their rooms or bed spaces, while agreeing to provide them with meals and/or lodging for a price.

Meanwhile, Blas v. Court of Appeals concerned the Premier Theater Building, whose owner, Alfonso Bichara, leased to Emilia Blas. In their lease agreement, Bichara authorized Blas to sublease the premises for a five-year period. Thus, Blas orally agreed to sublease to Arthur Yao a portion of the leased premises for a monthly sublease rental fee.

Afterwards, however, Bichara demanded Yao to pay to him the sublease rental fee since his lease agreement with Blas had already expired. Yao complied with Bichara’s demand, upon which the latter filed against Blas an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

The MeTC and upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court ruled to extend Blas and Bichara’s lease contract for another five years. This development compelled Blas to demand Yao to pay the accrued sublease rentals. Nevertheless, Yao continued to remit his payments to Bichara and refused to vacate the subleased premise when Blas demanded to do so.

This time, Blas filed against Yao an ejectment suit before the MeTC. The MeTC ruled in favor of Blas and directed Yao to vacate the subleased premises. Upon appeal, however, the RTC and Court of Appeals effectively reversed the MeTC’s findings.

In this regard, the Court of Appeals particularly held that Blas was not entitled to eject Yao since the period of the sublease agreement had not yet expired and was effectively renewed upon the renewal of the lease contract. Moreover, Yao had not defaulted on his payment of the sublease rentals since he had done so with Bichara, who in turn was crediting the same to Blas.

In Blas v. Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals found, among others, that based on the stipulation in Emilia Blas’ lease contract with Alfonso Bichara that the term of the sublease agreement shall be coterminous with the terms of the latter, the sublease agreement was effectively renewed upon the renewal of the lease contract.

Thus, Blas’ sublessee, Arthur Yao, was entitled to stay in the subleased premises.

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision, stating that the disputed stipulation in the lease contract did not prohibit the lessee or sublessor from subletting the premises involved for a period shorter than the duration stated in the lease contract. This is consistent with earlier jurisprudence that the sublessee’s right to remain in the premises depends on the lessee’s right to remain himself.

In this case, Blas was entitled to sublease to Yao the subleased premises on a monthly basis in accordance with the sublease agreement, instead of renewing the sublease for the full period of five years stated in the lease contract.

Moreover, the Supreme Court found that Yao default on his payment of the sublease rental in favor of Blas, despite having paid the same to Bichara. To be sure, a sublease agreement involves two distinct leases—that is, the principal lease and the sublease. The lessee’s personality as the sublessee does not disappear, such that his rights and obligations to the lessor are not acquired by the sublessee.

In this case, Yao’s payment of the sublease rental to Bichara was not payment to Blas.

Meanwhile, Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose concerns a parcel of land owned by Hospicio de San Jose (HDSJ), which was leased to German Inocencio. The lease contract stated, among others, that it is non-transferable unless HDSJ’s prior written consent to the transfer is obtained.

German constructed two buildings on the property, which he thereafter subleased, and designated his son, Ramon, to administer them.

German passed away, after which Ramon started collecting the sublease rental. He did not notify HDSJ of German’s death, but was paying the rent to the latter and taxes on the property.

In a subsequent letter to Ramon, HDSJ stated that it recognized that an implied lease contract existed between them, considering that it had been accepting Ramon’s rental payments. Nevertheless, considering that Ramon had been paying the rent on a monthly basis, despite the parties failing to agree on the lease period, HDSJ decided to terminate the lease contract by the end of a particular month.

Ramon sought to renegotiate the terms of the lease contract for the sublessees’ welfare, to which HDSJ refused since neither was it notified nor did it give its consent to Ramon subleasing the premises to 20 families on top of a commercial establishment. HDSJ also refused to accept Ramon’s rental payments.

HDSJ then filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Ramon and the sublessees before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Ramon countered, among others, that HDSJ was estopped from challenging the non-transferability of its lease contract with German since after his death, it admitted that it had an existing lease contract with the former.

MeTC ruled in favor of HDSJ, affirming the non-transferability provision in HDSJ and German’s lease contract. Since it could not be transferred to Ramon as German’s heir, he could not sublease the disputed premises. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals affirmed the MeTC’s findings.

The Supreme Court partly granted Ramon’s appeal. It upheld the non-transferability provision in the lease contract, which merely reiterated the Civil Code provision that the lessee cannot assign the lease without the lessor’s consent, unless there is a contrary stipulation. Nevertheless, in acknowledging its month-to-month lease with Ramon, HDSJ is deemed to have continued its lease with Ramon in his capacity as a lessee, and not as German’s heir.

As such lessee, Ramon was entitled to sublease the premises. To be sure, the assignment or transfer of lease under the Civil Code, and which has been prohibited from the lease contract, is different from a sublease agreement, where the lessee becomes a lessor to the sublessee. The sublessee then becomes liable to pay rent to the original lessee. But, the juridical relation between the lessor and lessee is not dissolved.

Source: Inquirer

Can I still increase the rent by 7 percent?

What are the pertinent laws, rules and regulations governing the lease of residential units.

For one, we have Republic Act (RA) 9653, otherwise known as the Rent Control Act of 2009. Insofar as the lessor's capacity to increase the amount of rent, Section 4 of RA 9653 specifically provides:

"Section 4. Limit on Increases in Rent. - For a period of one (1) year from its effectivity, no increase shall be imposed upon the rent of any residential unit covered by this Act: Provided, That after such period until December 31, 2013, the rent of any residential unit covered by this Act shall not be increased by more than seven percent (7%) annually as long as the unit is occupied by the same lessee: Provided, further, That when the residential unit becomes vacant, the lessor may set the initial rent for the next lessee: Provided, however, That in the case of boarding houses, dormitories, rooms and bedspaces offered for rent to students, no increase in rental more than once per year shall be allowed."

Due to our government's aim of continuously providing protection to residential tenants, while at the same time being responsive to socioeconomic factors which affect the availability and access to residential rental houses and units as well as the financial capacity of residential tenants, the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development has approved National Human Settlements Board (NHSB) Resolution 2023-03, dated Oct. 13, 2023, which regulates rent covering the period of Jan. 1, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024 for monthly rental rates that do not exceed Ten thousand pesos (P10,000). Said resolution expressly states:

"WHEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing, the National Human Settlements Board hereby RESOLVES, as it is RESOLVED, to continue the rental regulation for the period January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 under the same terms and conditions provided under NHSB Resolution No. 2022-01, that for as long as the unit is occupied by the same lessee, the rent of any residential unit shall not be increased by more than four percent (4%) for the monthly rental rates of P10,000 and below;

"PROVIDED, that when the residential unit becomes vacant, the lessor may set the initial rent for the next lessee, provided that in case of boarding houses, dormitories, rooms, and bed spaces offered for rent to students, no increase in rent more than once a year shall be allowed;"

Taking these tenets into consideration, we submit that one may only increase the monthly rental rate of ones lessee by up to 4 percent if the current rent is not more than P10,000, in consonance with National Human Settlements Board Resolution 2023-03.

If the current rental rate for ones residential apartment is more than P10,000, then one may increase the rent by 7 percent

Source: Manila Times