Solicitors at stalemate in house purchase re leasehold issue - options?

[Fairlygrounded]

So we've had a nightmare 6 months buying and selling, we're at the final hurdle and the solicitors are at stalemate on one leasehold item. Our solicitors are stating they need to vary the lease on the property we are purchasing to make it compliant with mortgage lending criteria. The vendor's solicitor says it is compliant and is refusing to vary the lease and the management company says it is also compliant.
Where do we go from here? We've got a deadline of two weeks before a mortgage offer in the chain expires.
We can't really afford to purchase the freehold but are looking into that as an option. Is brinkmanship standard in conveyancing or will they literally just dig in and watch it all collapse? Beyond stressed!

[LBOCS]

Have you spoken to the mortgage lender? Would a letter license be adequate? What is the issue?!

[Fairlygrounded]

Our solicitor advised against speaking to the mortgage provider in case they pulled the offer.

This is the issue they are stuck on:

1. In relation to the last point, we shall need a deed of variation so as to be compliant with the Lender's Handbook requirement at 5.4.13 (which we set out for ease of reference:) "The only situations where we will accept a restriction on the mortgage or assignment (whether by a tenant or a mortgagee) of the lease is where the person whose consent needs to be obtained cannot unreasonably withhold giving consent." Please immediately contact the freeholders to arrange for this.

So the current freehold management company have stated they will never restrict this, but our solicitor said what if it gets sold on and they want the lease varying.

[Fairlygrounded]

I'm pretty certain there wasn't a smiley face in the legal jargon!

[SuedeEffectPochette]

Is the problem that the mortgage company need the lease to say that consent to an assignment will not unreasonably be withheld. If the lease says that landlord's consent is required the vendor is correct. Show your solicitor this paragraph....


If a lease does not expressly state that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, it is likely that section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 ("the 1927 Act") will imply the requisite qualification into the lease anyway.

[SuedeEffectPochette]

So, to clarify - the requirement to be reasonable is implied by statute (1927 Act) if the lease says landlord's consent is required.
If the lease just says you can't assign etc, a deed of variation would be needed I suspect.
I think your solicitor is just unaware of the provisions of the 1927 Act..