Forum Home» House Buying, Renting & Selling

Buy Your Freehold - guide discussion - Page 6

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Buy Your Freehold - guide discussion

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in House Buying, Renting & Selling
192 replies 50.9K views
13468920

Replies

  • I have found what you have guided me to!

    http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=53

    It is in ascertaining the purchase price that there is noticeable difference from the 1993 Act. Under Section 31 of the 1987 Act the price is “An amount equal to the amount which …..that interest might be expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller on the appropriate terms and on the assumption that none of the tenants of the landlord of any premises comprised in those premises was buying or seeking to buy that interest”.

    In other words marriage value is discounted in ascertaining the purchase price so if there is 80 years or less to go on the lease the Acquisition Order option has its attractions. Indeed if it can be shown that there are major problems with the management of the building consider seeking an Acquisition Order if enough support can be raised.

    :beer::beer::beer::beer:
  • propertymanpropertyman Forumite
    2.9K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Happy to help!

    Moreover where there is disrepair which the landlord has ignored, the price can be adjusted to reflect that as, as a new landlord knows, their recovery of the costs are limited if the costs of works would be higher as result of that disrepair e.g. if it had been painted the windows would not have rotted.
    Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
    Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn
  • Happy to help!

    Moreover where there is disrepair which the landlord has ignored, the price can be adjusted to reflect that as, as a new landlord knows, their recovery of the costs are limited if the costs of works would be higher as result of that disrepair e.g. if it had been painted the windows would not have rotted.

    So for example if paint is peeling from the fascia boards, rendering has blown and taken place over a number of years then that is taken into consideration?

    I think MSE should come up with a system to reward people like you with beers/wines as you deserve it :beer:
  • propertymanpropertyman Forumite
    2.9K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, as long as its disrepair which was ignored and in ordinary circumstances could and should have been repaired by a comptetant landlord. The most widely quoted reference is continental ventures vs white and reading a few LVT decisions will show this.
    Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
    Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn
  • Yes, as long as its disrepair which was ignored and in ordinary circumstances could and should have been repaired by a comptetant landlord. The most widely quoted reference is continental ventures vs white and reading a few LVT decisions will show this.

    So, in summary:

    The surveyor can use the 1987 act to disregard MV
    The surveyor can also quote continental ventures vs White to reduce the valuation due to neglect by the landlord

    :beer:
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • Update:

    Saw sols Friday. She advised that it seems we meet criteria for 87 act acquisition order, although she wants to check with one of the partners to see what the risk is of a cantankerous judge deciding that we don't meet the criteria.

    Basically as it's a maisonette, we have responsibility to insure (so there's no breach of covenant there) but the freeholder must ensure that repairs are undertaken (as they are'nt about they cannot) - what our sols said was that technically they've breached it (as they aren't there to enforce) but as the lease says the costs are recoverable from the leaseholders there is a chance that the judge may not rule in our favour.

    Our fingers are crossed :eek::D
  • edited 30 September 2013 at 8:53AM
    propertymanpropertyman Forumite
    2.9K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 30 September 2013 at 8:53AM
    Af2909 wrote: »
    Update:

    Saw sols Friday. She advised that it seems we meet criteria for 87 act acquisition order, although she wants to check with one of the partners to see what the risk is of a cantankerous judge deciding that we don't meet the criteria.

    Basically as it's a maisonette, we have responsibility to insure (so there's no breach of covenant there) but the freeholder must ensure that repairs are undertaken (as they are'nt about they cannot) - what our sols said was that technically they've breached it (as they aren't there to enforce) but as the lease says the costs are recoverable from the leaseholders there is a chance that the judge may not rule in our favour.

    Our fingers are crossed :eek::D

    Well this should not be before a Judge but the FTT-PC ( nee LVT).

    Moreover I do get frustrated with High Street solicitors wandering into L & T as they plainly don't understand the precedent based on the comment " you might lose as you pay for it either way"

    That the costs are in the first instance recoverable for a lessee is undeniable however those costs are subject to being fair and reasonable in scope cost and procurement.

    That the costs are increased as as consequence of the landlords neglect or failure allows them to be limited as they are neither fair nor reasonable as explained and I suggest you beat with this.:rotfl:
    http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j350/LRX-60-2005.pdf
    Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
    Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn
  • Well this should not be before a Judge but the FTT-PC ( nee LVT).

    Moreover I do get frustrated with High Street solicitors wandering into L & T as they plainly don't understand the precedent based on the comment " you might lose as you pay for it either way"

    That the costs are in the first instance recoverable for a lessee is undeniable however those costs are subject to being fair and reasonable in scope cost and procurement.

    That the costs are increased as as consequence of the landlords neglect or failure allows them to be limited as they are neither fair nor reasonable as explained and I suggest you beat with this.:rotfl:
    http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j350/LRX-60-2005.pdf

    To be fair to her she did say it seems that we do meet it and she wants to double check. Having dealt with her before she doesn't do BS and I'd rather her be robust rather than miss something which would come and bite us on the arris.

    Thanks for all your help, you really do deserve a reward :beer:
  • Also - just to add to the above post, we need to go to court to get the acquisition order, I don't think the issue of valuation was the problem it was to check if the wording would almost certainly allow us to proceed under the 87 act, given that most people use the 93 act :beer:
  • propertymanpropertyman Forumite
    2.9K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well its not as simple as that.:)

    While the Court grants the order the terms including price and disrepair should be determined at the tribunal, as explained by the Court kicking it over to them.

    While the Court might consider disrepair, they cannot determine price ( the Act is specific on that ), and therefore its daft to allow them to do so when the FTT_PC is an expert tribunal on both matters.

    Any Judge reserving the former would be daft to do so when required, on the latter, to hand it over for determination, especially when both issues are so closely linked :)

    Its all in the drafting of proceedings;)
    Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
    Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support