Lost Leasehold Agreement

propertyman

AMO wrote: »

I think as the other person says, try and check the lease of your neighbours.

I have never heard of a 999 year lease. There are reasons why leaseholds have 99 years on them. Even if it were possible to get 999 years, it wouldn't make sense if the original from 1971 was only 99 years.

I can only presume that the flats weren't selling and that was some kind of bargaining factor?

But the primary reason for flats to be leasehold is that they become dangerous after a couple of hundred years and they can rebuild the structure after the lease runs out.

I'll be kind and say that you rarely find good advice on leaseholds on cereal packets, or from "common sense".

999 year leases long pre-date the 99 year lease which was common in the early 70's onwards, but in use from the 30's in high vlaue areas. It wa the standard length for any flat lease.

They suited most ownerships and were adequate for the average 20 or 25 year mortgage terms rather than the much longer terms common today. the 125 year lease became more common in the early 90's .

Leasehold are only in existence because of the definition of freehold included ownership above and below the building ( with various exclusions and limits) there must a form of title to allow different overlapping ownerships.

Contrary to what you say they in fact ensure that the building is maintained and rebuilt and not allowed to fall apart.

SecondTimeBuyer

propertyman wrote: »

I am surprised that they do not have a file or scanned copy ( we maintian all leases licences and tenancies digitally as well on the permanent paper copy file as long as they are current or someone is getting a spanking) but it seems odd that they have no record nor that the lender from 2007 has one.

In 2007 I would be almost certain that at some point they downloaded a copy simply to review the lease are report on it to you and the lender.. HMLR should have a record of any user accessing those records.

It is certainly worth asking for that to be reviewed by the managing partner their internal process if they have one instead.

The problem is though that how were they responsible for the land registry losing the lease?

From what little information I can gather I believe that the Land Registry that had lost the 2003 lease prior to me purchasing the property in 2007 and it has only been discovered now. I believe that the conveyancing solicitors NEVER RECEIVED the 2003 lease documents in 2007 as the documents they passed on to my mortgage company and myself were the 1971 documents. This is why they do not have a duplicate / scan of the 2003 lease. The only problem is I am not sure I would be able to prove it.

propertyman

SecondTimeBuyer wrote: »

From what little information I can gather I believe that the Land Registry that had lost the 2003 lease prior to me purchasing the property in 2007 and it has only been discovered now. I believe that the conveyancing solicitors NEVER RECEIVED the 2003 lease documents in 2007 as the documents they passed on to my mortgage company and myself were the 1971 documents. This is why they do not have a duplicate / scan of the 2003 lease. The only problem is I am not sure I would be able to prove it.

Ahh well then the solicitor needs a spanking.

You instructed them on purchasing a 999 year lease and the register shows jsut that , yet they acted on a 99 year lease registered 22 years prior....!?

Hmmm.:doh:

AMO

propertyman wrote: »

I'll be kind and say that you rarely find good advice on leaseholds on cereal packets, or from "common sense".

999 year leases long pre-date the 99 year lease which was common in the early 70's onwards, but in use from the 30's in high vlaue areas. It wa the standard length for any flat lease.

They suited most ownerships and were adequate for the average 20 or 25 year mortgage terms rather than the much longer terms common today. the 125 year lease became more common in the early 90's .

Leasehold are only in existence because of the definition of freehold included ownership above and below the building ( with various exclusions and limits) there must a form of title to allow different overlapping ownerships.

Contrary to what you say they in fact ensure that the building is maintained and rebuilt and not allowed to fall apart.

You say yourself that the 999 year lease pre-dates the 99 year lease. Therefore, it is not common as I had said that a 99 year lease to turn back into a 999 lease.

Of course buildings have to be structurally sound for them to be lived in. But one of the major reasons for flats being leasehold is redevelopment over time. It is higher maintenance for a structure, the older it gets and the area gets run down.

People didn't think 'Oh, lets make the concept of one property build on another to be leasehold, but individual properties with gardens to be freehold' because they have nothing better to do.

propertyman

I would respond but really cant be bothered with someone extrapolating from little or no real experience, nor understanding of property ownership.

So, what a donut...

I must have dreamed the last 30 years of general practice of which 25 specialising in residential leasehold practice matters, and all those 999 year leases that have been granted....

SecondTimeBuyer

This is just an update for completeness. We managed to 'create' a duplicate of our lease from a copy of our neighbours. The neighbours lease was extended around the same time as us, so the text contained within it was assumed to be similar and more importantly the conditions were assumed to be the same. The Land Registry accepted the duplicate and accepted costs incurred, so all in all it was successful. We have now exchanged contracts on our sale.