Garage is apparently leasehold

w00519772

I am in the process of buying a house (FTB). It is week 7.

I was informed today by my solicitor that the garage is leasehold unlike the house which is freehold. The garage is not attached to the house. It is located about a ten second walk from the house.

Is this normal? I think there is an apartment above the garage. Perhaps that is why it it located? Would this put anyone off?

br3nnan

Its very common nowadays on new estates - allows the developer to squeeze in another property for little extra expenditure.

The property I'm currently selling is the same. It didn't put off me and hasn't put off my buyer. You just have to check the terms of the lease and whether it involves any yearly charges.

w00519772

br3nnan wrote: »

Its very common nowadays on new estates - allows the developer to squeeze in another property for little extra expenditure.

The property I'm currently selling is the same. It didn't put off me and hasn't put off my buyer. You just have to check the terms of the lease and whether it involves any yearly charges.

does your lease have annual charges? Could this change?

agarnett

I would think carefully indeed about it.

Being party to a lease for part of a property is the sort of complication that most people do not need in their lives and therefore despite what has been said earlier, then the market for resale will be restricted, however slightly or maybe significantly depending on how well the arrangement was designed.

Developers are notorious for not just squeezing in the last units on their sites, but also hammering square pegs into round holes with regards to badly thought out leases and deeds for ongoing maintenance of odd multi-user corners like this. Then selling on the half-baked freehold upon which the garage and the apartment above sit, without a care, to some anonymous property management company which makes a living out of twisting the badly thought out words to their advantage at every turn for the next 99 years or whatever it is. Buildings insurance is their favorite rip off. They usually assume control supported clearly by the lease wording or sometimes not, and then over-insure it at a ridiculous premium rate so they and their insurance middlemen associates rake an enormous "commission".

It is not just a question of whether you are put off by some innocuous looking annual ground rent and/or service charge liability. It is a question of how well thought out the developer's solicitors made the damned arrangement in the first place. In my experience, it will be just thought through sufficiently for someone to come along and say "it's very common nowadays on new estates" and to get away with brushing it under the carpet you are standing on when they sell it to you - carpet and all.

noh

It would not put me off but then my property is exactly the same. My garage is leasehold with a 999 year lease at a rent of one peppercorn p.a.
The freeholder is the owner of the apartment above. I am potentially liable for a proportion of the building insurance. In the 12 years I have lived here the freeholder has not asked for this.

hazyjo

My last house was like that - two garages separate to the (FH) house, with an apartment above. The service charge covered insurance for the garages and maintenance/upkeep of surrounding areas. Think we paid around £200 a year. Wasn't a huge amount.

Wouldn't put me off buying another like that. If you want a fairly new house, it probably is something you'll occur in most instances.

Jx

martindow

What would happen if repairs or maintenance were needed to the roof or the flat that is above the garage? You need to check the terms of the lease to see whether you may be presented with large bills in the future.

propertyman

Do ignore the drivel about evil developers. As there are other units above it, it has to be leasehold. As said above you will pay service for upkeep of the block that it is part of. It nowt new , plenty of Georgian coach or mews houses with leasehold garages about as well.

AlexMac

Your solicitor (if they are any good) should explain how long the lease is, if short - how to extend and at what cost, and what the insurance, repairing or management (and fee) obligations are on the garage or (worst position) if the lease is incompetent or unclear on any of this. Assuming all is well, the only downside would be if you get copped with shared one-off repairor re-roofing costs, plus the slight loss of control, in that if you wanted to repaint or even replace the garage door, you'd theoretically have to seek the freeholder's permission.

noh

With mine the freeholder is entirely responsible for the maintenance of the fabric of the building.
I am responsible for the fittings ie the garage doors.
The only costs I am liable for is a proportion of the building insurance.

br3nnan

As per "noh" my annual rent is one peppercorn ( a token amount that has never been collected). When new the lease was for 999 years.

Again I am responsible for the garage door and window on the road facing side. The freeholder (owner of the property above garage) is responsible for the building structure.

With regard to insuring the garage, I told my insurer the situation with the garage being beneath another property. They didn't have a problem with it at all