Flying freehold - buyers solicitor says we have it, we think we don't - HELP!

MrsMooMoo

We are selling our end-terraced house. Our buyers solicitor has raised an issue with our solicitor, saying that they want us to pay £200 for an indemnity insurance policy to cover the fact that our house has a 'flying or creeping freehold'. The buyer's solicitor has commented that the wording in the property register doesn't specify who is responsible for maintenance and repair of the part of the FIRST floor building 'encroaching' on our boundary.

I am completely stumped, as no part of our house overlaps or underhangs our neighbour's house, and no part of their house overlaps or underhangs our house. Both houses have a main house which runs parallel upstairs and downstairs. Then both houses have a very old extension (over 50 yrs) incorporating the toilet/bathroom (which obviously once was outdoors). Ours is an L-shape sticking out the back of our house, theirs is an L-shape fitting together with ours. The roofs of both these are flat and do not 'overlap' in anyway. Theirs has a different covering to ours so each is clearly demarcated. The end wall of their L-shaped extension runs alongside our garden fence and the L-shape of ours runs alongside their kitchen.

Can somebody please explain how this is a flying or creeping freehold? Because from everything I have googled, this really doesn't apply to our house. Besides which, neither us, nor the former owner of our house (who we've asked) has heard of 'flying freehold', our property was sold as just 'freehold'. I've also asked the 3 former owners of the house next door (they still live locally, I know them all) and they also say they never heard of it being 'flying freehold' and that they never had an issue with this when buying or selling.

A search on MSE forums only shows 'flying freehold' queries about houses and flats which overhang or run underneath another person's property, and also mentions problems getting mortgages on 'flying freehold' properties. Well, as obviously ours was only termed 'freehold' when we bought, and when the former neighbours and owners bought, none of us has ever had an issue with getting a mortgage.

Am I right in thinking that the solicitor has got it wrong?

princeofpounds

It sounds like it. A flying freehold doesn't say it is 'on the tin', so to speak. It's just a freehold that doesn't have the full title over everything above and below it, as they normally do. But from your description it doesn't sound like there are any overlaps physically, but you need to be sure that there aren't any overlaps in the title plans of you and your neighbours as well.

You should query where they are getting this from as first step.

A mistake still seems most likely.

Vohamanah

It could be a mistake but equally there may be something you are overlooking. I'd recommend you ask your solicitor to explain exactly why the policy is needed, with reference to a plan. If they can't explain it themselves you should at that point start questioning it (or rather, your solicitor should on your behalf).

MrsMooMoo

Our solicitor has given us a copy of the plan, with our house boundaries in red, and clearly there is no overhang or underhang (but on a 2D plan you can't see the upper storeys so I guess it may not be clear to the buyer's solicitor). Still no idea why they haven't just been to see the house for themselves to check, but I still think it doesn't apply.

Anybody know if 'flying freehold' applies to properties that run side by side only with no over or underhanging?

G_M

As suggested, I would write to your solicitor and

* state there is no flying or creeping freehold to you knowledge

* ask where exactly the buyer believes this flying/creeping freehold is, with reference both to the Title Plan and the physical boundary

MrsMooMoo

Okay thanks, will do. Just find it strange that nobody has queried that the house has always been freehold before, surely if there was flying freehold we would have known about it? Or some owner in the past 100 years would have spotted it?!
Am thoroughly bemused that I seem to know more than two solicitors.