Buying a Shared Freehold Flat

princeofpounds

So what would you call that? Freehold or leasehold? The property has just been sold, advertised as 'share of freehold', should it have been advertised as 'commonhold'? - which I have never seen when property-hunting!?

The individual flats were and always will be leasehold.

Then there is a separate freehold - and legally it is as totally separate as you and your parents are separate as individuals despite belonging to the same family.

That freehold may be jointly-owned, or in better practice it may be owned by a company in which the leaseholders own shares.

So the way it should be advertised is 'leasehold flat along with share in freehold company' or something similar.

Obviously 'shared freehold' is a phrase that gets around the cumbersome nature of the language. But it causes problems because people often fail to understand that the flat itself is not freehold and they also often don't understand the arrangement for ownership of the freehold itself.

In particular people often struggle with the fact that they have two different 'hats' as leaseholders and part beneficial owners of the freehold, and they actually have make decisions in those roles from those two different perspectives.


There are literally a handful of commonhold properties nationwide. Commonhold is a distinct and different legal structure. Of course it should not be advertised in that way.

rpc

Joanthebone wrote: »

They then both had long leases made up. They stopped paying their ground rent and became responsible for all maintenance (they always were anyway). So what would you call that? Freehold or leasehold? The property has just been sold, advertised as 'share of freehold', should it have been advertised as 'commonhold'? - which I have never seen when property-hunting!?

They have long leases. It is leasehold.

They also own the freehold.

kingstreet

I own a leasehold flat.

I take off that hat. I put on another hat.

I am a shareholder in the freehold of the building.

You are two legal entities at the same time. One does not necessarily affect the other.

I decided not to use the term "simples" for obvious reasons...

People think the writer may be a bit simple!

Larsson67

propertyman wrote: »

Those are estate agents particulars not HMLR:p..... There are only three types of tenure in England and Wales freehold, leasehold, and commonhold.

Law of Property Act 1925- not a mentalist- you have been "lawyered"

Ha! fair play.

It does amuse me that you use a term that doesn't exist to scold me about using a term that doesn't exist though

Larsson67

kingstreet wrote: »

I own a leasehold flat.

I take off that hat. I put on another hat.

I am a shareholder in the freehold of the building.

You are two legal entities at the same time. One does not necessarily affect the other.

I decided not to use the term "simples" for obvious reasons...

People think the writer may be a bit simple!

Exactly. If only there was a short hand term that could encapsulate all that so that property professionals could understand the situation.

propertyman

Larsson67 wrote: »

Ha! fair play.

It does amuse me that you use a term that doesn't exist to scold me about using a term that doesn't exist though

Aah, but I use it as a colloquial term, signified by the "lawyered" and don't mistake it for, or use it in place of an actual thing .

propertyman

Larsson67 wrote: »

Exactly. If only there was a short hand term that could encapsulate all that so that property professionals could understand the situation.

Which is why they used SOF, but that came to be, and was offered up by EA's, as an actual thing. Hence the problems that crop up.

The simple answer is as posted above put it on particulars

Lease X years Ground Rent £Y SC £Z

Freehold this is owned by the residents/their company

propertyman

princeofpounds wrote: »

So the way it should be advertised is 'leasehold flat along with share in freehold company' or something similar. .

Well no as that only compounds the confusion. it should be expressed simply "the residents/their company owns the freehold".

G_M

Larsson67 wrote: »

propertyman wrote: »

Well no you haven't as there is no such thing. Its freehold, leasehold, and commonhold and thats it.

This isn't my flat but the Land registry disagrees with you.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/upper-maisonette-at/33-taybridge-road/london/sw11-5pr/27488576

:rotfl:

You are not quoting the Land registry! Your link is to zoopla, which is simply quoting the estate agent responsible for marketing the property. Which also answers benjus's question earlier:

I've been looking at leasehold flats to buy, some of which are sold with a share in the company that owns the freehold. The vendors and agents have always been very clear about what that means, and at no point have I been led to believe that I would be buying a freehold flat.

Not sure why there is so much confusion over this...

because estate agents, and others, use confusing, erroneous, and misleading terminology.

dazbowski

I need urgent advice.

Ok so my flat is up for sale and I advertised it as Freehold (i now know it's not)

What it actually is (i've checked with land registry) is a detached house split into two (i own the top) A shared freehold between me and the couple downstairs, so 3 shares) and each flat is a leasehold with I believe 97 years on the lease.

My issue was I have a buyer for my flat and they couldn't get a mortgage because I told them it was shared Freehold. I have now only just realised my error.

Would or should there be an issue getting a mortgage for a flat in my sutuation? Also should it be advertised as leasehold?

Can I also ask how do we extend our lease and do we need too? We are very friendly with the co freeholders and am sure it will be fine.

One last thing, would I sell my share in the freehold when I sell?

Thanks for your time.

Darren