Selling my flat (sold stc) ~ lease issues, help needed

kari001

thequant wrote: »

Hmm, How did you find your original solicitor ?

They are local and were recommended to me as Solicitors friends & family had used.

teajug

Do you have your lease at hand if so what does it say about the common parts of the building. Flats should have a head lease, which can be obtained at the land register. You can request to look at the deeds of the other property, but your solicitors should have done that for you. The solicitor should have also done searches on your proposed purchase. The vendor should have give answered to standard preliminary questions on a prescribed form prior to the exchange of contracts.

Your solicitor should have discussed any adverse clauses in the lease with you prior to exchange of contracts.

propertyman

teajug wrote: »

Do you have your lease at hand if so what does it say about the common parts of the building. Flats should have a head lease, which can be obtained at the land register. .

Tea jug I am sorry but your don't understand this situation or the term head lease.

These are where there are two flats one up one down. Each flat has a lease, not a head lease, and the freehold is divided in two. One flat owner owns
a their lease
b one of the 2 freeholds which is subject to the lease of the other flat.
( in simple terms)

A head lease is where most or all of a building is subject to a lease, and out of that head lease, under leases are created for individual properties eg flats.

malcolmffc

What is the purpose of a cross cross lease? Sounds like a bizarre arrangement. Why not just own the freehold to your own part of the building?

teajug

Surely for insurance purposes there got to be a head lease. A property that has been divided into 2 flat with each flat that is responsible for their own parts for repairs, that is OK for minor repairs. However if the roof needs repairs and water is coming in like no tomorrow and the leaseholder does not do repairs it will affect the property underneath. Same with with bottom flat if there is subsidence this will affect the top flat as well. The building needs to be insured as a whole for major repairs as mentioned above.

kari001

Building Insurance is another issue I have teajug. My original solicitor advised that I consult with the first floor flat owner after i moved in and try to get the building insured under one policy albeit in both our names. At the time, because we had no info available (bought as a repossession) I had to Insure my flat separately. I'm not happy living in a building with tenants upstairs and it not being fully insured.

So far, in 12 months I've seen him once, and that was by chance when he popped into his tenanted flat about a problem they were having. It took lots of persuading, near begging, for him to give me his mobile phone number and I forgot to speak to him about the insurance.

His address on Land Registry is the upstairs flat, although he doesn't live there. I've tried telephoning to ask him to fill in the Freehold enquiries form, and have also asked for a copy of his buildings insurance. I've left messages and sent text messages but I've had no response. It's definitely his phone as I recognised his voice on the answerphone..... he is just trying to obstruct the sale for reasons I do not know.

I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall and don't feel like there is any hope that it's ever going to be resolved.

I just don't know what to do as far as he is concerned.

G_M

teajug wrote: »

Surely for insurance purposes there got to be a head lease. A property that has been divided into 2 flat with each flat that is responsible for their own parts for repairs, that is OK for minor repairs. However if the roof needs repairs and water is coming in like no tomorrow and the leaseholder does not do repairs it will affect the property underneath. Same with with bottom flat if there is subsidence this will affect the top flat as well. The building needs to be insured as a whole for major repairs as mentioned above.

As Propertman said above, you do not seem to understand the term 'Head Lease'.

Putting aside the current 'criss-cross' set-up, in a 'normal' lease situation (in Eng), most buildings have 'leases', one for each flat, with a seperate freehold (owned ither by one of the flatowners, all of them jointly or by someone totally seperate). There is no 'Head Lease'.

The major repairs you describe are the responsibility of the freeholder, though in 999 cases out of 1000 each lease will make the respective leaseholders liable to pick up the costs.

Hence the reason most leases involve an annual 'service charge' payment (not to be confused with ground rent), to cover costs of ongoing maintenance and, ideally, the building up of a sinking fund for future major repairs. The freeholder arranges these repair/maintenance issues and pays for them under the terms of each lease by taking the service charge or, sometimes, via a one-off bill to each leaseholder.

A head lease is a totally different animal and implies a further level of rights/responsibilities ie Freehold to Head lease to Under lease.

In this scenario, unusually, (though Propertyman says this is more common 'up North'!) there are two freeholds, with flat 1's owner owning the lease to flat 1 and the freehold to flat 2, and flat 2's owner owning the lease to his own flat (2) + the freehold to flat 1.

In this way they each have a legal duty and responsibility to each other (thus forcing them to undertake the major works to the building jointly).

If they each owned their own lease AND freehold, the owner of flat 1 (downstairs) would have no interest in paying for repairs to the roof, gutters, etc and the owner of upstairs would likewise be uninterested in repairs downstairs.

Additionally, neither party could force the other to contribute to joint insurance or electricity for the common parts etc (since there would be no legal link between the two of them).

teajug

After reading all the post, I think G_M has hit the nail on the head. Or maybe your solicitor can get a deed of variation as you suggested in your post.

I am not sure what you can do if the owner of the flat above you dose not want to play.

Get in contact with your council and tell them that you are concern that that the flat above you that is rented out to tenants may not be insured.

Also you need to look at all the documents that is with the land registry and see what is in that package, ie if the flat above you has a mortgage on it or not and who the mortgage or loan is with.

propertyman

teajug wrote: »

Surely for insurance purposes there got to be a head lease. A property that has been divided into 2 flat with each flat that is responsible for their own parts for repairs, that is OK for minor repairs. However if the roof needs repairs and water is coming in like no tomorrow and the leaseholder does not do repairs it will affect the property underneath. Same with with bottom flat if there is subsidence this will affect the top flat as well. The building needs to be insured as a whole for major repairs as mentioned above.

No again it's senseless to apply common sense and logic, L & T has it's own rules and logic.

It is very common where there are only two properties that the top is responsible for all the top and the lower owner all the lower, inside and out, over and under Back in the late 60s early 70s it was pretty much the standard arrangement in blocks of 10 20 or more.

As indicated there are situations where the freehold is jointly owned however if one flat says fix the roof and the other who is responsible says no, they are voting 1 against 1.

No it need not be insured as one, again its fairly common.

The criss cross lease means that as freeholder of the other flat, where the roof needs fixing, they can force them to do so.

propertyman

kari001 wrote: »

Building Insurance is another issue I have teajug. My original solicitor advised that I consult with the first floor flat owner after i moved in and try to get the building insured under one policy albeit in both our names. At the time, because we had no info available (bought as a repossession) I had to Insure my flat separately. I'm not happy living in a building with tenants upstairs and it not being fully insured..

But again your solicitor does not understand :eek:

While it is ideal, it is not required and the existing lease allows the other leaseholder to stick two finger up at you- al they are required
to do is insure their bit.

Again they don't understand as you, as freeholder, can force the to insure their bit, and take them to court or threaten to seek possession by forfeiture via the LVT and then the County COurt.