Buying a flat in Tooting Bec, London

Minzo

My wife and I are buying a flat in Tooting Bec, South London and there are a few niggling problems that our respective solicitors are 'quibbling' over. These are as follows:

• The lease does not include the loft (its a top floor flat, part of two in a victorian house), the seller is being unhelpful, which means we either pull out or approach the freeholder after the sale has gone through and see what they say. What are we looking at price-wise and what are the implications of using the loft simply as storage (which incidentally means we will be 'improving' it) without the freeholder knowing...?

• There are a couple of stud walls which have been erected, and we cannot prove when these were erected, and our solicitor has requested indemnity insurance from the sellers side to ensure we are covered against these changes which may breach some covenants in the lease...what are the implications of this - we are looking to renovate the whole flat - including taking down these pointless stud walls - will we require consent of the freeholder before undertaking such works? (ripping out kitchen/bathroom, painting, decorating, sanding and varnish floors etc)

• the lease states that no external aerials are to be erected, but there is one there and when our solicitor asks for clarification, the seller and her solicitor simply state that the seller only used the socket in the wall and did not erect an aerial, and used cable so they are not interested in this matter...what do we do here? How to we prove that we did not erect the aerial if need be?! And again, if we wanted, say, Sky TV, would we have to ask the freeholder for consent?

The seller has now imposed a deadline to exchange of 12th October otherwise she will withdraw from the sale and remarket the flat...annoying!

Looking for any help possible...

Thanks

Richard_Webster

Your solicitor is taking up reasonable points that could come back and cause you problems later - either with the landlord/freeholder while you are living there or with him/buyers when you want to sell.

The loft issue is a case of you making up your mind about whether or not to proceed with the loft not included.

The other two points could affect your mortgage lender in that its security could be threatened if the freeholder decided to take the matter to court, etc. May sound a bit theoretical but solicitors have to be careful that they protect lenders' interests. Trying to get a lender to say clearly in writing it is not bothered about that level of detail will take a lot longer than between now and 12th October, so that is not likely to be an option.

Minzo

Thanks Richard

Seems the sellers lawyer does not want to answer some of the points raised by our lawyer and the attitude is 'do you want it or not'?

I wonder if these points can be raised with the freeholder by us after we purchase the property or if we taking a HUGE risk by proceeding with this property, given that the points are not answered.

The seller cannot prove that she added stud walls (which would effectively breach a covenant in the lease), and thus if we go in and start ripping down the walls, to what extent will be liable? I wonder.

Again regarding a roof TV aerial - the lease states this is not to be erected - but the lease is old and property is now normal residential dwelling so I wonder again how reluctant the freeholder would be to let us do this (well, not to change since there is already one up)...or add a Sky TV dish etc...

Regarding the loft and inclusion in the lease - we could always request use of the loft, giving the reason that we are improving the property and thus extending the longevity of the place, not destroying it....?

All seems a bit silly, but I guess most depends on what the freeholder will allow us to do...?

Minzo

Would Indemnity Insurance help in this instance?

Covering us against any items the freeholder reckons breaches any covenants of the lease?

The seller may have breached some covenants and of course we cannot prove this. She unwilling to pay for indemnity insurance. But if we do this (who provides this?) would it be sufficient to act as a mechanism of detailing what condition the flat was in when we bought it [any changes we actually make will be covered with the freeholder...]

Richard_Webster

You can get indemnity insurance for breaches of leasehold covenants but it tends to be more expensive than freehold restrictive covenant insurance and usually has to be a one-off so there is an automatic minimum cost of around £200.

Policies will be subject to lots of conditions and will not cover future breaches if you do more work.

Seller may be refusing to ask landlord about the points for two reasons:

Either or both:
1. Seller believes that another buyer's solicitor might not spot the points so if it went back on market and was sold easily (this depends on your local market) then seller may get away without issues being raised. They are points that might not be spotted. Solicitors always have this dilemma - do you ask lots of questions about points like internal stud walls and uncover a hornet's nest or do you do a minimum job for a quiet life and then when buyer sells it all comes out and you are asked why the point was not spotted? I prefer the former approach because it is safer for all concerned, but realistically a seller and his solicitor may conclude there is reasonable chance that the points will not be raised by another solicitor.
2. Seller thinks landlord will take an unreasonable stance that will frighten buyer and therefore doesn't want to contact him about it.

Because of point 2 above you cannot assume that you can sort things out with the landlord over the loft space etc after completion. Landlord may want £20K to include loft in lease!

Fire_Fox

Minzo wrote: »

I wonder if these points can be raised with the freeholder by us after we purchase the property or if we taking a HUGE risk by proceeding with this property, given that the points are not answered.

The seller cannot prove that she added stud walls (which would effectively breach a covenant in the lease), and thus if we go in and start ripping down the walls, to what extent will be liable? I wonder.

Again regarding a roof TV aerial - the lease states this is not to be erected - but the lease is old and property is now normal residential dwelling so I wonder again how reluctant the freeholder would be to let us do this (well, not to change since there is already one up)...or add a Sky TV dish etc...

Regarding the loft and inclusion in the lease - we could always request use of the loft, giving the reason that we are improving the property and thus extending the longevity of the place, not destroying it....?

All seems a bit silly, but I guess most depends on what the freeholder will allow us to do...?

You need permission to make any structural changes to the inside or exterior of the flat/ buildings - this includes adding or removing walls, installing Sky dishes. If it's an older property you may not get permission to put in a Sky dish. Painting and decorating is basic maintenance, kitchen and bathroom are fixtures and fittings so permission will not be required as long as you don't need to access communal areas to amend the electricity or water services.

You may find to take over the loft space you may be required to take over responsibility for the surfaces that contain it - i.e. maintenance of the roof itself. If the loft presently belongs the freeholder you need his permission to use it which will no doubt cost, if it belongs to the leaseholders then you will need the permission of the other flat and possibly their mortgage company if the long lease needs amending.

My personal opinion is you should assume the worst - that you cannot remove or add walls, you cannot install a Sky dish and you cannot use the loft ... do you still want the flat? If so go ahead with the conveyancing and have a go at getting the permmisions in place. The alternative is to write to the freeholder directly and ask if he will be forthcoming with the relevant permissions, but this will take time.

Can I ask why you think it "all seems a bit silly"?

Minzo

All seems a bit silly as I am tempted to make the changes anyway and use the loft - but of course I wouldn't do this as it would be breaching the holy covenants.

I agree with Richard - I think the seller thinks that remarketing the flat will hopefully attract a buyer with a not so detailed lawyer involved. However when we viewed the flat we were led to believe by the estate agent that the flat was included. it was only after our solicitor received the lease she uncovered that the lease did not include the use of the loft space. Annoying.

Firefox - assuming we cannot use the loft space, remove the stud walls or even add a TV aerial then we probably would not go ahead with the purchase - but i am tempted to contact the freeholder directly, over the phone if possible and have a word and get an idea of what they will or will not allow. Especially since we have a deadline now of next Monday.

Fire_Fox

I assume both the estate agent and seller now know the loft is theirs: they therefore cannot re-market the flat and suggest the loft is included. My parents use the loft in their duplex apartment without permission, but they have done so in such a way that it can all be put back before they sell. It's only used as storage not extra living space as the latter would breach fire regs. Initially my father only accessed the space to add extra insulation but it's huge!

I know long leases can seem difficult to comprehend as if you had a house freehold you'd be able to do anything you wanted subject to planning. Our block is rendered, and has been subject to a number of minor unauthorised additions (for sale boards nailed on, Sky dishes). As a result we now have small pieces of render broken away which is allowing ingress of water. The render will need replacing in some areas long before it's time - this will be very expensive as scaffolding will be required.

Minzo

Firefox - indeed in a similar fashion this is what we intend to use the loft space for - storage - and in doing so we would be spending more money to improve the loft - have it properly insulated, and boarded up for safe measure and of course if we are putting our belongings up there then we would be inclined to make sure that the integrity of the roof is true. So I can't see what the fuss would be about - and again we would do it in a fashion so as to put it back as standard if necessary (but most likely we would try and buy the loft space as this would be beneficial to any future buyer of the flat)

Sky TV etc - meh - they can all get taken down with ease, and or use cable - no problem there - there is already an aerial up there, which the seller says she does not know anything about.

And to what extent are these investment/freeholder type of management firms likely to come around and inspect our flat...as long as they get a regular cheque for ground rent?

Fire_Fox

I'd be inclined to ask permission to insulate the loft area and to put boards down in order to do so safely. Are you confident the joists are strong enough to support the items you wish to store?

Installling a Sky dish will involve drilling into the fabric of the building, causing damage albeit minor. Poor installation of even one dish can cause major problems as detailed above - bear in mind the fabric of the building does not belong to you as it does with a freehold property. If every flat in an apartment block installed a Sky dish then the damage to the fabric of the building would be significant.

The management company won't usually ask to inspect the inside of the flat as you have a right to quiet enjoyment, unless they have reason to believe a covenant is being breached. Our building is inspected weekly inside and out by our caretaker on the same day that he tests the fire alarms. It's also possible a nosy neighbour will report you for breaching your long lease.

If you are thought to be breaching your long lease chances are you will receive a letter, but you can be taken to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. It's relatively rare that a dispute goes so far but it certainly does happen and will be a costly mistake. My advice is not to buy leasehold if you aren't happy with the rights and responsibilities that this entails.

I know the above sounds very negative but it is meant with the best of intentions! I'm getting the impression you want someone to tell you to go ahead - but it wouldn't be right of anyone to advise you to take the law into your own hands.