Deed of Variation - Lease

MyNameIsDavid

Hello, I'm buying a maisonette which I will co-own the buildings freehold.

During the sale, it had been highlighted that the loft conversion (an area which I'm buying) is not stated in the lease.

Around 6 weeks ago I was told that we had to commence on a Deed of variation to have this added to the lease, however 6 weeks on, we seem to be no closer concluding this issue.

I know that there are two other leaseholders (part freeholders) and I know that at least one of them has contacted a solicitor regarding this issue. Therefore I'm guessing its these people that are causing the delay.

My question(s) are:
Should I be worried? I initially was told that this deed of variation is typically a 2 week delay.

Is it common for a freeholder to contact a solicitor in order to sign off on a deed of variation? (I.E is one of the below flats kicking up a fuss)

If anyone has had similar experiences that they would care to share, that would be appreciated.

Kind Regards,
David

G_M

The other leaseholders, in their capacity as joint freeholders, will want to consider the implications, both legal and financial, of this lease alteration.

* It may affect maintenance: who is responsible for maintaining what part of the building
* it may affect access (for maintenance)
* if there is, for example, a water tank up there, used by other flats, that has implications
* The increased space awarded tothe leaseholder by including the attic has a value - sale of it by the freeholders to the leaseholder could cost £

Clearly alot depends on the advice theother freeholders get, and their attitudes- this could take time.

propertyman

Well clearly you aren't buying it as the vendor can only sell you what is in the lease.

If the freeholders, it seems a group of people who own flats in the building and who together ownthat loft space, want to wenter into a deed ofvariation they can and it is relatively simple.

the space however might have consderable value if, and this is is important it also includes the roof and air spae to allow you to convert it.

:money:be careful that you are not just buying the inside of a loft and won' own the roof itself as you cannot alter a roof that belongs to the freeholders

Richard_Webster

When you have this sort of situation the other co-freeholders may not really understand what is going on.

If one has contacted his solicitor the other may simply not understand why he is being asked to sign a document - he is not buying or selling so why should he involve a solicitor? To help you buy this flat, you might say. But he may simply may not be bothered.

So this kind of thing can often take a long time because the others do not necessarily understand why they should co-operate - or they may understand all too well and not want to!

MyNameIsDavid

Thank you all for your replies. I guess I should think about making myself comfy in my current residence.

Unfortunately I have a tenant waiting on one of my rooms, I'm not keen on letting him down. I'll have to put it down to the naivety of a first time buyer.

Thanks again.

propertyman

Well no they might be stupid and agree to ask you for £5,000 and you hum and haw and eventually agree.

And convert the loft and add £20k on the flat value... :rotfl:

AlexMac

MyNameIsDavid wrote: »

...During the sale, it had been highlighted that the loft conversion (an area which I'm buying) is not stated in the lease.

Around 6 weeks ago I was told that we had to commence on a Deed of variation to have this added to the lease...

I know that there are two other leaseholders (part freeholders) and I know that at least one of them has contacted a solicitor..

If anyone has had similar experiences that they would care to share, that would be appreciated.

Kind Regards,
David

Your solicitor should be giving you clear advice on this, including clarifying whether the lease as it stands (before variation) specifies the current status and ownership of the loft space, and specifically whether this is regarded as a communal space. I know that sounds daft, as often, in a typical 3-unit block (especially a conversion) only the top flat will have access to the loft).

But in all prior cases where I have been a leaseholder and also a co-owner of the shared freehold (which I assume is your circumstance) the leases were competently drafted in that they were clear on the question of what was individually and what was communally owned. For example, in my last flat- a conversion- the loft was communal, as was the roof covering, but then, so was the external brickwork of the building other than the internal plaster skim. This protected the individual leaseholders so that not only were roof repairs a collective responsibility, but so were brickwork, and rising damp should this ocurr.

In terms of 'any previous experience...'; One leaseholder of the top flat was rash enough to tell a prospective purchaser that they could probably convert the loft, whereas this was clearly owned by the shared freehold company (of which all six resident leasehold owners were co-directors). This caused some bad feeling, as in effect, the leasehold 'owner' of the top flat didn't own it. In fact the incoming buyer was relaxed about this once the position was explained, and did not persist with the idea of conversion, but if he had wanted to, there would have had to have been a discussion about 'selling' the loft to him (and in fact the flat owner immediately below his was so pooped off at the prospect of building work above them that they would have aimed to block the sale- which they probably copuld have achieved as one of the co-directors of the freehold company).

I'm maybe being alarmist, and it may be that your problem is a lot simpler, but in the event that you were told by the estate agent or vendor that the loft was part of the deal, and you based your offer on that, there may be room for re-negotiation. And above all, you need to avoid nmoving into a flat where you've already hacked off the co-owners; as you'll have to co-operate in future on common repairs etc. Good luck

MyNameIsDavid

propertyman wrote: »

Well no they might be stupid and agree to ask you for £5,000 and you hum and haw and eventually agree.

And convert the loft and add £20k on the flat value... :rotfl:

Ok, thanks. In this case, I would expect the vendor to pay this money, as the loft conversion has already been carried out, so I am buying the property at the elevated price

AlexMac wrote: »

... clarifying whether the lease as it stands (before variation) specifies the current status and ownership of the loft space, and specifically whether this is regarded as a communal space. I know that sounds daft, as often, in a typical 3-unit block (especially a conversion) only the top flat will have access to the loft).

But in all prior cases where I have been a leaseholder and also a co-owner of the shared freehold (which I assume is your circumstance) the leases were competently drafted in that they were clear on the question of what was individually and what was communally owned. For example, in my last flat- a conversion- the loft was communal, as was the roof covering, but then, so was the external brickwork of the building other than the internal plaster skim. This protected the individual leaseholders so that not only were roof repairs a collective responsibility, but so were brickwork, and rising damp should this ocurr.

I'm keen to know as much as I can about this situation, so alarmist is good! 7 weeks ago I thought the deed of variation would simply require a few signatures and take a max of two weeks, so I don't want to underestimate the severity of this issue (any more than I already have).

The communal area thing makes perfect sense. I have noticed the roof, brickwork, etc in the documents. But nothing about the loft space itself (Unless this falls under roof?) I have contacted my solicitor to clarify.

Yes, this is a conversion (from house to 3 flats) and yes, the flat I'm buying is the only one with access to the loft.

The property was advertised as a maisonette with the extra space, so if they have been selling something which isn't theirs, then my offer would have to change to reflect this. (In this case, I would begrudgingly have to pull out of the sale because the loft space is a key area)


Thank you to everyone who has responded.

propertyman

MyNameIsDavid wrote: »

Ok, thanks. In this case, I would expect the vendor to pay this money, as the loft conversion has already been carried out, so I am buying the property at the elevated price .

Wow that wasn't clear earlier and the vendor has just annexed land that isn't his! I'd be saying sort this at your costs or not only am I looking elsewhere but you owe me my costs.

:money:Take a look at this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4754355=

As I say there, check " What you see is what you get"

Richard_Webster

Do please look at the thread Propertyman refers to because he has given a lot of useful advice there.

MyNameIsDavid

Thank you for the advice! Much appreciated.

I have been on the phone to my solicitor who has informed me that the loft space is a communal area and one of the owners of the lower flats has decided to contact a solicitor to have the lease re drawn.. which may (and most likely) result in me taking sole responsibility for the roof. (should I finalise the sale)

I'm going to have someone take a look at the roof, and also make sure that, due to having sole responsibility, I also get a signed consent from the other freeholders that I can apply for planning permission for a dormer (should I want one as it currently has 2 velux windows).

Finally, I'm going to re-negotiate my offer, accounting for the losses that I'm incurring, due to delays and added responsibility on the property.

I'm also planning on contacting someone to see if I'm able to re-coup costs if I decide to pull out of the sale. (Due to the mis-selling of something that doesn't belong to them). I'm not sure if this is possible.. But I would like to think that I'm not going to lose the money I've spent on having the loft surveyed, seeing as I've effectively paid someone to look into something on the premise that it would belong to me if the sale went through; which is currently incorrect.

As a 24 year old first time buyer, my current concern is that there is too much risk involved and I should cut my losses and get out of there.

I know i've said it before. But thank you all again for taking the time to help me. I hope other people in my (or a similar) situation will also benefit from this thread.