Just curious

bouicca21

I'm not going to put in an offer on a potentially glorious Victorian conversion flat on the grounds that to achieve even minor glory I'd need to come up on the lottery.

But quite apart from the extensive remedial/refurbishment works required, it seems that there is an interesting legal conundrum and I'm curious to know how it could be sorted.

The EA claimed to be unable to identify the freeholder, let alone whether it is a shared freehold. He did not have access to a copy of the lease and did not know how to get hold of it so did not know what the ground rent or maintenance charges were. Because he could not identify the freeholder he insisted that the garden was not part of the sale, although it was patently obvious that it had at some stage been divided between the 2 flats in the house.

Details were filled in by a neighbour. The flat was bought by Mr A who intended to split it further into smaller units; he failed to get planning permission and also failed to pay his mortgage and the flat was repossessed. At auction it was bought by Mr B. It has since been repossessed again. Apparently Mr A and Mr B despite having different names are the same person. The flat is share of freehold but the freehold is in the name of Mr A and the second repossession is in the name of Mr B and would seem to apply only to the leasehold. Mr B has disappeared. So only the leasehold is for sale; hence garden not included (unless of course it is covered in the mystery lease).

Now clearly any buyer is going to get into a legal minefield. There is some obvious penetrating damp - possibly from either gutters or roof - that will have to be fixed. But without a lease and contact details for Mr A or Mr B who would be authorised to fix it? And if the works had to be done without Mr A/B's consent and knowledge, would costs be recoupable (only in theory since being dodgy in reality he wouldn't pay up would he?). Could he be compelled to sell the freehold? (2 flats in the house.)

Presumably the land registry would have details of the freeholder and lease? If so, surely the EA has something of a duty to get copies? And if not a duty then an incentive since as soon as potential buyers learn of this they are likely to consider pulling out, thus depriving EA of his fee.

Like I said, just curious.

G_M

This is a legal matter - nothing to do with the estate agent. Even if the EA does provide answers, take them with a pinch of salt.

You can get copiesof the freehold Title and Leasehold Title, and the 2 related Title Plans, for £3 each from the Land Registry here.

Fraise

It's incredible that an estate agent doesn't know if the flat is SOF or not, or what kind of lease its got and how many years etc. Who is selling the flat?

For what it's worth SOF means that both co-freeholders must sign over the share of freehold when selling, so the owner of the other flat would be the one to ask all these questions to.

The freeholder can be forced to sell the freehold to you after so many years of living there, but if you can't find him then it will probably mean going down the legal route. SOFs can be problematic which is why most co-freeholders form a company, which avoids all these legal disputes and problems.

cattie

Estate agents rarely know much about a lease anyway as they go on facts provided by the current owner & owners can often be purposely vague about such things, or even stretch the truth in an effort to secure a sale. Thus I find nothing strange in this ea claiming to have no knowledge.

And no, the ea has no obligation to obtain copies of lease etc. from land registry. It is for the buyer or their solicitors to check these kind of things out.

tim123456789

Fraise wrote: »

It's incredible that an estate agent doesn't know if the flat is SOF or not, or what kind of lease its got and how many years etc. Who is selling the flat?

.

IME it's absolutely normal. Even with a "real" person sale

tim