PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Selling my flat of 6 years - my Lease has been incorrect the whole time - am I stuck?
neilio
Posts: 286 Forumite
I'm in the process of selling my flat. I originally bought it under shared ownership six years ago and I staircased to 100% two years ago. My shared ownership Lease was never varied to remove the pre-emption clauses nor remove restrictions from Land Registry titles. This came up in my purchaser's searches, and they are now being addressed. However, a concerning query has come up regarding one of the terms of the Lease, and it is a clause that is not intended to be removed by the Deed of Variation.
The clause says "That the Leaseholder shall fully carpet all floors of the Premises (save for the kitchen and bathroom, which shall be covered with linoleum or other similar material) with an underlay of suitable quality and shall not lay any laminate or wooden flooring save that this provision shall not apply to ground floor flats."
My flat has laminate flooring throughout the kitchen/diner, living room and hallway. It was sold to me brand new like this, so it makes no sense that the Lease should imply that I should have taken up all of the laminate flooring and replaced with carpet! My solicitor has asked if the flat has laminate because if it does then it is in breach of the Lease.
I think I know why it says this in my Lease. When I moved in, there were two standards of flat. The lower spec flats were sold as shared ownership and had lino floors in the kitchen and bathrooms and carpet in the living rooms and bedrooms. The higher spec flats had laminate flooring in the kitchen, living room and hallway, tiled bathroom floors, and carpeted bedrooms. This was at the height of the financial crisis and not all the higher spec full-sale flats could be sold, so they were offered on shared ownership. I took a higher spec flat as shared ownership. I am worried that I have had the incorrect Lease intended for the lower spec flats all this time without realising, because the housing association never produced a new template Lease for the high spec shared ownership flats. It is speculation, but this looks like what has happened.
It seems ludicrous that I would be expected to rip up the high quality laminate flooring upon moving in to replace with with carpet and lino. It makes no sense at all.
Could it be I've had an incorrect Lease all this time? What can I possibly do to rectify it?
The clause says "That the Leaseholder shall fully carpet all floors of the Premises (save for the kitchen and bathroom, which shall be covered with linoleum or other similar material) with an underlay of suitable quality and shall not lay any laminate or wooden flooring save that this provision shall not apply to ground floor flats."
My flat has laminate flooring throughout the kitchen/diner, living room and hallway. It was sold to me brand new like this, so it makes no sense that the Lease should imply that I should have taken up all of the laminate flooring and replaced with carpet! My solicitor has asked if the flat has laminate because if it does then it is in breach of the Lease.
I think I know why it says this in my Lease. When I moved in, there were two standards of flat. The lower spec flats were sold as shared ownership and had lino floors in the kitchen and bathrooms and carpet in the living rooms and bedrooms. The higher spec flats had laminate flooring in the kitchen, living room and hallway, tiled bathroom floors, and carpeted bedrooms. This was at the height of the financial crisis and not all the higher spec full-sale flats could be sold, so they were offered on shared ownership. I took a higher spec flat as shared ownership. I am worried that I have had the incorrect Lease intended for the lower spec flats all this time without realising, because the housing association never produced a new template Lease for the high spec shared ownership flats. It is speculation, but this looks like what has happened.
It seems ludicrous that I would be expected to rip up the high quality laminate flooring upon moving in to replace with with carpet and lino. It makes no sense at all.
Could it be I've had an incorrect Lease all this time? What can I possibly do to rectify it?
0
Comments
-
You can either contact the people you bought it from and try and get it changed (could take ages and cost a lot), or just change to carpets.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
That is exactly what I want to avoid doing. Is there any kind of indemnity policy I could get?0
-
Why is the clause not being removed?
Some flatted developments have a principle that upper floors can only be carpeted because of the increase in noise-nuisance to those below them.0 -
The point here is that my flat on an upper floor, along with many many others in this building, were marketed and sold as being "higher spec" than others, and included laminate flooring throughout. Why on earth would a Lease say that laminate is not allowed and imply that ALL flats must actually have the "lower spec" standard. It makes no sense.0
-
Is there any kind of indemnity policy I could get?
Almost certainly (assuming your buyers are happy to accept an indemnity policy). But it means not bringing up the subject with the HA or the neighbours.
But the explanation about the different spec of flats sounds odd, as said above the whole point is to avoid noise problems, and I suspect even cheap carpet would be better for that than posh laminate.0 -
I thought it had something to do with sound. Incidentally I've never had any problems with sound from above, and nobody below has complained to me about sound from me. Are you saying that this building should never have been built with upper floor flats with laminate floors? Because that would be nonsense as well. And to clarify, this is a modern building - I moved in when it was brand new, six years ago. Brand new residential buildings are built with flats with laminate flooring, all the time, everywhere, for goodness' sake.0
-
I guess what happened back originally was someone had the sense to realise it's not acceptable to allow laminate flooring in upper floor flats (ie because of noise transmission) and duly put that in place in all the leases.
Someone else did a "left hand not knowing what right hand is doing" and was inefficient and wrongly arranged with contractors to put laminate flooring into the "high spec" flats. That person made an error and that shouldnt have happened - and they've probably still got their job to this day...
Well - you can't get Mr/Ms Inefficient that had that flooring put in place sacked. You're not going to be able to get the leases amended (as they are perfectly correct - as that person did their job properly).
No-one is going to be prepared to even think about changing the leases for the sake of something that was a passing fashion.
Which leaves you one option, ie taking out an indemnity policy. That's what I would do in your position (whilst swearing at Mr/Ms Inefficient for not having carpets laid in the first place).0 -
Is it normal for a Lease to outright say that the type of flooring provided is not allowed, meaning I was in breach of my Lease the moment I moved in?0
-
But why not just get your solicitors to remove that condition along with the other changes to your title?0
-
But why not just get your solicitors to remove that condition along with the other changes to your title?
I bet that would cost lots of money and delay - if it were possible at all.
I would imagine that everyone's leases would have to be changed - and not just OP's.
I don't get what the problem is deemed to be. Hand over a cheque for something probably quite small (£30? £50?) for an indemnity policy.
Any kicking up OP does re peoples leases means no chance of an indemnity policy in all probability.
Quickest/easiest/cheapest way to sort = get that indemnity. Why choose any other option (ie trying to fight back all these years later to get them to deal with the effects of Mr/Ms Inefficient's actions)?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards