Buy Your Freehold - guide discussion

SKPatel

Just a very small point as i have undertaken quite a few of these types of matters. From what I recall, once the Court grants the acquisition order, The President of the Lands Tribunal will appoint a surveyor to act on behalf of the Court to determine the price payable for the freehold. Of course, i do file a draft Order suggesting this for the Court's approval but it has never to date been rejected.

af2909_2

propertyman wrote: »

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;)

Yeah - my only worry is given that the LL has been missing for nearly 30 years no doubt the fee paid will be going to the treasury (eventually) and the cynic in me worries that they may be under external pressures to push the matter down the 93 act (given the extra 7k theyd get from marriage value) - unlikely I know but I'm just a layman with a small amount of knowledge on these matters

Thanks again for your help

:beer:

af2909_2

SKPatel wrote: »

Just a very small point as i have undertaken quite a few of these types of matters. From what I recall, once the Court grants the acquisition order, The President of the Lands Tribunal will appoint a surveyor to act on behalf of the Court to determine the price payable for the freehold. Of course, i do file a draft Order suggesting this for the Court's approval but it has never to date been rejected.

:beer: is this the only survey I will need to be undertaken

propertyman

Well no you don't organise that the court will. If the freeholder is absent and I admit your first post was some time ago, then the advice you received about leaseholders paying for it anyway is moot as there is no freeholder about in the past, nor likely to be in the future to do so.

Your choice is therefore to decide whether you accept the courts determination ( via a qualified valuer in simple terms as an independant expert) which is what SKP is suggesting or if you intend to have your own put forward a figure and for the COurt to determine between them.

propertyman

af2909 wrote: »

Yeah - my only worry is given that the LL has been missing for nearly 30 years no doubt the fee paid will be going to the treasury (eventually) and the cynic in me worries that they may be under external pressures to push the matter down the 93 act (given the extra 7k theyd get from marriage value) - unlikely I know but I'm just a layman with a small amount of knowledge on these matters

Thanks again for your help

:beer:

Well no as the application is yours not for a Court to decide which route to take. It will succeed or fail based on your argument under the terms of the Act, not that there is route that is beneficial to the landlord.

Besides if the LL had an interest to protect, and had done so, then the only route for you would have been the 93 Act. His loss

af2909_2

propertyman wrote: »

Well no you don't organise that the court will. If the freeholder is absent and I admit your first post was some time ago, then the advice you received about leaseholders paying for it anyway is moot as there is no freeholder about in the past, nor likely to be in the future to do so.

Your choice is therefore to decide whether you accept the courts determination ( via a qualified valuer in simple terms as an independant expert) which is what SKP is suggesting or if you intend to have your own put forward a figure and for the COurt to determine between them.

Brilliant - so to summarise:

It would seem we meet the terms of the 1987 act as the landlord has breached the covenant to repair through his scarlett pimpernell impression (and we are qualifying tenants)

Therefore we would go to the court, attain the acquisition order then the LVT would convene a paper based hearing after their surveyor has valued the LL's interest :beer:

propertyman

Or, in your application to the Court you should be asking them to determine your application on the basis of the disrepair, any other issues, and the value, at the outset of the claim so that they can take the case with the "minimum of adminstration".

Part of that application can ask for the Court to transfer part of the determination to the FTT-PC or by independant expert appointed by the court via the president of the RICS or the FTT ( as opposed to the UT-LC ie what was, some time ago, the lands tribunal)

It rather depends on what the issues are, in detail, as both Courts and tribunals have both happily kicked it over to the other while some get quite protective about being " quite able to determine these matters, thank you".

While case allocation should take into account Judge's experience it does not always work that way and they might struggle with understanding say a breach of the current code of practice or might come to learn of the "Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order" for the first time..

af2909_2

Thanks again - I'll update progress as we go!

saffmonster

Question...

I've lived in my terrace house (mortgaged) for 13 years and I've had a letter from the freeholder saying they want to sell the leasehold which has 900 years on it. Letter says that if I don't want to buy it will be put up for sale/auction. If the lease isn't bought by myself and is bought by someone else what's the worse that can happen?

saffmonster

Bumping to see if I can get an answer...