72 yr old with Invalid leasehold after 23 yrs Please help

elsieraven

Hi, my mother who is 72 has lived in her leasehold flat for 23 years, she has just tried to sell it but it has uncovered a real can of worms. The flats which are built over shops, where built buy a GH who did not set up a management company, this problem was supposedly resolve. A management company was set up and registered. GH then when bust and the freehold was sold. But it seems that the title was never transfered to the management company. The freeholder is now refusing to recognise the management company and is issuing notices of forfeiture to all 13 residents. My mum is beside herself with worry as it appears she does not infact own the lease. What will happen? Will she be made homeless? Has she lost the value of the lease or can she get some kind of compensation? It is ill health that was forcing her to move in the first place and with out the proceeds from selling the flat she cannot afford to buy anywhere else. She got this all in the post today and as its a saturday these is no where open to go for advice.

mwahaha

First, try not to panic, forfeiture on a leasehold flat is *extremely* rare, the freeholder might just be trying it on, or trying to scare you into paying an unpaid service charge or ground rent. The things you've mentioned about the management company doesn't change this.

What does the forfeiture notice say about the reasons?

Obviously you and the other 13 residents need professional advice asap, but another excellent place for advice on leasehold issues, particularly the legal side of things is landlordzone.

tizhimi

No adivce I'm afraid from me. Just keep bumping your post and I'm sure there are some legal brains on here who can help

Fire_Fox

If she has tried to sell I assume she has appointed a conveyancing solicitor so he should be the first port of call with a copy of the long lease. These guys also run a free telephone advice line: http://www.lease-advice.org/

No idea what GH means. Don't understand why the management company should have had the title transferred to them - did they buy the freehold?? On what grounds is the freeholder issuing forfeiture notices? Why is a dispute between freeholder and management company affecting the leaseholders so directly? What does the long lease say about service charges and ground rent - who are they to be paid to and has this been done?

Can you please rewrite your OP setting out much more clearly who the parties involved are and what the chain of events to date were.

Hippychick

Probably worth contacting a solicitor Monday morning and taking along copies of the letters.

http://www.lease-advice.org/ these people may be able to help and they have a helpline.

g_attrill

Nothing to add, except that I would have thought that if she's been there 23 years without problem then she (and the others) are in a very strong position!

elsieraven

Sorry it was such a muddled post. I had only just come of the phone from my mother who was very tearful.

I did not post company names as I was unsure if I was allowed to.

I don't have any more information other than what I have already posted, I'm going over to see Mum and will read through the paperwork and get more details.

We are going to see the solicitor and will ring on Monday morning first thing for an appointment.

I can say that the ground rent was a one off peppercorn at the begining of the lease and that service charges where paid to the management company. Each of the residents have one share each of the management company.

I don't suppose this makes it any clearer but I will repost when I have more info. To be honest I posted in a bit of a panic in the hope that someone would have come across this sort of thing before and say "no problem your mum's not going to lose her home"

Thanks to all who have replied

Lyn

mwahaha

To be honest from what you've posted it does sound like "no problem your mum's not going to lose her home", but without knowing what the forfeiture notice says we don;t know what the freeholder is claiming.

Good luck calming your Mum down.

Fire_Fox

"Forfeiture and possession

The final sanction for a landlord faced with a leaseholder in breach of his lease due to the failure to pay the service charges, ground rent or administration charges is to take steps to forfeit the lease and to repossess the house or flat. This is a right in law, but it is not possible to obtain possession without a court order. The process is commenced, generally, by the service of a valid notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Notice of Seeking Possession.
In practice, very few landlords enforce the procedures up to the point of their gaining possession of the house or flat, but they serve the section 146 Notice as a means of enforcing a payment of arrears, or to correct a breach of a covenant of the lease. The misuse of the process in some instances has led to a significant revision of the procedures. The landlord now has to prove that a breach of a covenant or condition in the lease has occurred before he can serve a valid s146 Notice. There are also controls on the use of forfeiture to recover very small sums.
The landlord cannot serve a valid section 146 notice unless the leaseholder has agreed the arrears or that the breach has occurred or that the breach has been finally determined by a LVT or a court or under a post-dispute arbitration agreement. A determination becomes final at the end of any period provided for appeal and the landlord may not serve the section 146 notice until 14 days after that date.
Where the dispute is about arrears, the landlord must also obtain a determination from the LVT that the amount is payable, and therefore reasonable.
So, where the landlord wishes to commence forfeiture action, the steps to be taken are:

• the leaseholder must agree that the breach has occurred and that any arrears are duly owing: or
• the landlord must make application to the LVT for a determination that the breach has occurred; and
• where the breach involves arrears, that the sum is payable and reasonable;
• after the determination becomes final, the leaseholder must be allowed a further 14 days in which to resolve the breach or settle the arrears;
• where, after 14 days the leaseholder has not resolved the breach, the landlord may proceed with service of the section 146 notice. This will require separate determination by the county court.

Failure to pay a small amount of charges for a short period

The landlord cannot serve a valid section 146 notice where the amount of service charges, administration charges or ground rent owed (or a combination of all of these) total less than £350, or have been outstanding for less than three years.
Of course, while forfeiture or action seeking repossession may not take place, a landlord may seek to recover monies through other means, such as the small claims court. This should not therefore be used as a means of withholding sums of money that are lawfully and reasonably payable under the terms of the lease."

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=14

The one thing I would add is to VERY carefully check the long lease for the terms of the ground rent. It is not usual to pay ground rent as a one off at the start of the lease, this seems fishy. I wonder if this is why the notice of forfeiture has been served and that the freeholders failure to recognise the management company has lead to him claiming there are arrears of ground rent and/ or service charges.

Those leaseholders who have needed to use a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to settle a dispute report that it is very user-friendly and not formal like a court. It would be best if all the leaseholders united on this issue as it will be much less costly, there is always strength in numbers and I would imagine your mother will be less frightened. It is possible to pay a little extra for one of the officials to go through the case and the procedures prior to the LTV itself.

elsieraven

I've got mum online now and she said no It was a one off payment.

elsieraven

I will be happier when I have had sight of the letter from the freeholder and spoken with the solicitor (who still has the deeds etc from the sale, which has now fallen through). The really stupid thing is that several of the flats have sold in the past with no problems at all, no body esle's solicitors noticed the problem.