Share OF Freehold - How would the remaining flat obtain this?

star88

Hi Everyone

If a converted house has three flats but only two of the flat owners has a share of the freehold how difficult would it be for the remaining flat owner to obtain part of the freehold too?

If you own part of the freehold do you still need to renew your lease if it become too short, if so, would it be cheaper because you own part of the freehold?

Any advice greaful

G_M

1) Speak to the two freehold owners and ask them if they are interested in selling a share. Then discuss the price (assuming they say yes).

2) Yes, ownership of a share of the freehold has no impact whatsover on the terms, or length, of your lease.

Extending the lease may be easier/cheaper. But would still require agreement from all freeholders. If, for example, the existing leases of the 2 current freeholders are 999 years and yours is 70, then they will have no interest in extending their own leases (which would require your agreement once you are a freeholder) so they may request payment for agreeing to extend yours. The payment would, of course, be split 3 ways, with you receiving a third.

However if all 3 leases are the same length, then it is likely all 3 leaseholders will have the same interest in extension, and will easily reach agreement at nominal cost.

da_rule

The 2 owners would have to sell a share of the freehold to the owner of the 3rd flat. It may be that all 3 flats are leasehold, but 2 owners also own the freehold. As such they can renew their lease period as they see fit.

cattie

All flats will be leasehold as explained by GM. So yes you still do need to renew a short lease, especially if considering selling. It is usually far cheaper to extend the lease when owning a share of the freehold, as all shareholders work out a cost, often quite nominal.

da_rule

cattie wrote: »

All flats will be leasehold as explained by GM. So yes you still do need to renew a short lease, especially if considering selling. It is usually far cheaper to extend the lease when owning a share of the freehold, as all shareholders work out a cost, often quite nominal.

I thought, that especially in situations like this, the ground floor flat may be freehold?

AdrianC

Where there's a "share of freehold", then the flats themselves remain leasehold. What happens is that the freehold is owned by a company, whose shares are owned by the lessees/flat owners - and the freeholder company issues new leases according to whatever criteria the directors feel suitable.

It might be that the shares are owned one per flat. It might be that a larger flat has more shares, in proportion to floor area. It might be that the awkward git who owned number three didn't want anything to do with the whole idea, so didn't get a share.

If there's only three shares, but four flats, then that fourth flat isn't going to easily get a share short of a new one being issued by the company.

Woolwich_Kim

After living there for 2 years, doesn't a lease holder have the right to buy a share of the freehold? Can other freeholders object to this?

da_rule

No there's no right. No one can force you to sell your freehold interest in a property (well there are certain circumstances where they can but this isn't one of them).

thequant

Woolwich_Kim wrote: »

After living there for 2 years, doesn't a lease holder have the right to buy a share of the freehold? Can other freeholders object to this?

That's the right to extend the lease

thequant

da_rule wrote: »

No there's no right. No one can force you to sell your freehold interest in a property (well there are certain circumstances where they can but this isn't one of them).

You need a majority of leaseholders to force a sale of freehold, but since the freeholder company is owned by the majority of leaseholders there is nothing the OP can do.