Extending lease on Share of Freehold flat

markoptions

Please clarify

If you own the share of the freehold for your flat in a 3 flat converted house then u can extend any lease on your flat at no cost other than your solicitors fees.

The fact that you have purchased the share of the freehold for the flat
eliminates the potential cost levied by the original freeholder to etend the lease

Mark H

propertyman

markoptions wrote: »

Please clarify

If you own the share of the freehold for your flat in a 3 flat converted house then u can extend any lease on your flat at no cost other than your solicitors fees.

The fact that you have purchased the share of the freehold for the flat
eliminates the potential cost levied by the original freeholder to etend the lease

Mark H

No that is not always the case. If say you bought in later on, then your payment might include a lease extension or you might have to pay for that as a seperate item.

Richard_Webster

Please clarify

If you own the share of the freehold for your flat in a 3 flat converted house then u can extend any lease on your flat at no cost other than your solicitors fees.

The fact that you have purchased the share of the freehold for the flat
eliminates the potential cost levied by the original freeholder to etend the lease

You approach other co-freeholders wanting a lease extension.
They might say they won't sign because:
a) "we don't have leases - we're shared freeholders" or some other nonsense or
b) "we might sign if you put in more insulation so we can't hear you walking around in your first floor flat" (or deal with some other grievance) - you say the lease doesn't require you to do that - they say they are not signing....or
c) "the law says you have to pay a premium to us based on a statutory formula" You say they don't have to ask for it and anyway they can't because "we are shared freeholders..." They say "where do you get that from then?"

Sorry to go through those examples - but the point is you have no legal right to a lease extension by jointly owning the freehold.

If they refuse you can't take them to court - in a three flat situation you could end up going through the statutory process and paying each of them 1/3rd of the premium that you would have to pay to an outside freeholder - and of course you would have to own the flat for two years before you could do that!

I find it somewhat ironic that a solicitor is advising us against the dangers of relying on the law - isn't the law in place precisely to make these kind of 'friendly', informal fact-finding missions that are being recommended completely unnecessary?!

Ok, I can accept that it's to your advantage to do your own ground work at some point but surely this cannot be your first port of call. There must be a document that my solicitor can get hold of that details the agreements set up between the freeholders and lists all their addresses and contact details and, perhaps, other useful information such as how long each flat has left on their lease and when the last least extension was conducted. What I'm saying is, shouldn't all this be readily available so that the solicitor can make his enquiries and you as the vendor can be aware of the position that you are in before you trek off to the property to bug the residents?

The information suggested could be obtained and what does that do then? A buyer might form a view as to the likelihood or otherwise of the people signing (and the co-freeholders could have changed since the last such extension if there was one) but waving the piece of paper with the information on it doesn't cause the other freeholders to quake in their boots and fear instant retribution if they do not sign!

Some people have this naive idea that a clear statement of the law causes instant action on the part of others. Occasionally it does, but very often, expensive, time consuming and stressful court proceedings are necessary to achieve that end.

So, even if there was a legal right you would still have to factor in the cost of the proceedings, but here In this case the law does not compel the so-called shared freeholders to agree to lease extensions except through the statutory procedure open to all flat owners once they have owned the flat for 2 years and paying the premium involved. There is no law prescribing free extensions for "shared freeholders."

london_sunset

I own a flat in a house converted into 4 flats. We very recently bought the freehold together and formed a company to manage it. we are all directors of the company.
I now realize that buying the freehold does not eliminate having to extend the lease!
My neighbor upstairs (top floor) is going to extend hers first, we need to sign her document, I have no issue with that.
She also wants to add to her lease the loft which is at the moment owned by all 4 of us (the freehold owners). She says she has no intention to do a conversion..
Question 1- Can she make this request? Since the only access to it is in her flat, none of us other 3 have use for it really.
2- If we all agree to her taking the loft, should she be sole responsible for the care and maintenance of the roof??
3- Finally, does it make more sense if the solicitor used for the freehold does my extension for the lease?

Thank you for your advice. LS

Richard_Webster

1. Anyone can make any request! Really up to the rest of you to decide. Are there any real disadvantages to the others? If, later, an extension into the roof is wanted then that flat will go up in value - would you want to share in the extra value at that point?
2. Possibly - but two points:
a) if she takes responsibility you as freeholders can compel her to do work, but you lose the imitative yourselves. Alternative would be that freeholder remains responsible subject to flat owner reimbursing full cost.
b)her lease will need to be altered to include the area and for her to covenant to maintain the roof/pay the whole cost of its maintenance.
3. Possibly. Best to get the precedent from the solicitor who acts for the neighbour in her extension as that would reduce cost a little. He could act for you unless you feel there is a conflict of interst because of the point about the loft.