Cannot determine which part of a property is freehold and which part is leasehold

Legacy_user

So I got past the survey issue I had on the house I am selling. The house I am buying had the seller lose it for a while and I said OK you can pull out and she did but came back yesterday with an apology due to the stress of it all.

I was feeling a bit smug today. Until I got slapped with the register of title by my solicitor. It states:

"The land is either Freehold or partly freehold and partly Leasehold intermixed and indistinguishable. The leasehold parts (if any) are held for the unexpired residue of a term of 531 years created by a lease dated 16 May in the second and third years of the reign of King Philip and Queen Mary."

It was mildly amusing. I work it out that the lease expires in 2085. However I have no idea what this means and neither does the solicitor as she has never seen this before. She has sought advice today but received the same response that this is not usual and hasn't been seen by them either in a transaction the completed.

Has anyone by any chance come across this? I downloaded the title for the house attached to this one (it is semi detached) and for the house on the unattached side. The house on the unattached side says exactly the same as above. However it then notes 'no copy or abstract if this lease is filed'. It also notes several transfers on 27 July 1955 between two parties as "Together with and subject to all rights easements and appurtenances thereto belonging to or appertaining as if the said properties hereby transferred and adjoining properties belonging the the* Transferor had not been in common ownership"

* "the" is repeated twice and not a typo.

It then goes on to talk about walls, fences etc.

The house attaches to the one I wish to purchase also has the same paragraph in the title. It also states no copy or abstract of the lease and then has the two paragraphs of the above from the property on the other side. However the charges register for this one then goes on to state a 99 year lease beginning 25 December 1950.

I'm really not sure what to make of this. My gut instinct is to walk away, then start running and never go near that street again. But then part of me wonders if this is 'normal' and whether there is a solution.

G_M

As your solicitor says, no, it' not normal, but then again, it's quirky.... interesting!

At first glance I'd guess there's no identifiable freeholder to this lease dated "16 May in the second and third years of the reign of King Philip and Queen Mary." and effectively it's freehold.

However, your solicitor needs to do some digging.

I ceetainly wouldn't walk away at this point, especially as the neighbouring properties are similar, so clearly a transation took place in the locality.

System

Many thanks G_M

Since I posted yesterday I realise that this one of those ones that I just should try not to think about! My only understanding of this is based on what I know about leases on flats (which is not much understanding anyway!) and this does not fit into that model. I don't understand how a freeholder let a series of houses be registered without identifying his/her interest in the leasehold section.

Solicitor said she had that usually when they deal with a part leasehold and part freehold house it is usually a garden or an outbuilding and even that is very rare.

I found that last two houses sold on the street. Their titles say the exact wording regarding the freehold and leasehold element (if any) being indistinguishable. So they seem to be selling.

G_M

Are you getting a mortgage?

If yes, is the lender happy to lend on the property? If yes, and given that mortgage lenders are much more pernickety these days, you should have no trouble selling in the future.

If no mortgage you take more of a gamble, as the decision is soley yours, but when you come to sell, a buyer's mortgage lender may refuse, making selling harder (cash buyers only).

System

A mortgage would be required. The solicitor said in this case the lender would almost always rely on her judgement so if she is satisfied and manages to find a solution then the mortgage would not be an issue. If however she does think there are issues them that is curtains for me as then the lender will not lend on the house.

System

We have spoken to friends of friends that live in that area. We have found two couples that bought in 2011. I have check their title of register and it is exactly the same.

They both said that they had the same issue raised and that all houses within that side of the general area (split by a main road with the village on one side and town on the other) had this in the title. Both said a leaseholder could not be found and that both went with indemnity insurance. In addition to that, we downloaded the title for the most recent sale that is on land registry and the title was also the same. Knocked on the door and a very nice lady was willing to help. She said exactly the same, after searching no details could be found regarding the lease element and that the solicitor had suggested indemnity insurance.

Not really sure what to make of that so will speak to the solicitor to see what insurance actually covers.

eddddy

Walcott wrote: »

...
Not really sure what to make of that so will speak to the solicitor to see what insurance actually covers.

Typically, this type of Indemnity Insurance would pay:

- the loss in the value of your property
- other expenses and losses

that arise from somebody establishing rights referred to in the property deeds.

e.g. in this case:

- if a lessor turns up and says "You owe 450 years of ground rent (at 3 farthings per year!)" - then the policy should pay it

- if a lessor turns up and establishes their right to take back the property in 2085... the market value of your property may plummet. So the policy should pay out that loss in value.


But in reality, indemnity insurance companies only issue policies for risks which they are 99.99999999999% certain will never happen. But it keeps mortgage lenders, and others, happy.

(But obviously, discuss this with your solicitor!)

System

Many thanks!

That is good to know. At least I now have an understanding of what to look out for.

bouicca21

I'm not very knowledgeable on historic land law, but just to prove my geekiness, I wonder if this was part of a mortgage transaction - commonly done in the 16th century by a process of lease and release. Once your problems with modern land law are sorted it would be fascinating to do a bit of research - with luck some basic info about the landowner during the reign of Philip and Mary would turn up in the Victoria County History.

Land_Registry

Walcott - it sounds as if you have followed this through in the right way

From a land registration perspective in England and Wales at least the process of registration relies on the deeds/documents of ownership relevant at the time of first registration. In some cases, and as suggested these are very rare, it is not possible to tell from the deeds lodged whether the title is freehold, leasehold or a mixture of both (intermixed). In many instances, the leasehold interests are terms of 500 years created in the reign of Elizabeth I but you may see other examples, as in this one.

It is though often an historical impact which, whilst still having a legal value, may not in essence be something which is ultimately likely to be enforced simply because those with the benefit of the lease as granted would not only have to prove that they had that benefit but also that it did in fact effect the property - you will note the (if any) reference in the entry.

You also have the issue of when does the lease term end - nowadays whilst a lease can expire the law may protect the interest in such a way as to enable it to be extended in some way but these types of leasehold interests cannot usually be enlarged once there is less than 200 years left to run.

buicca21's advice seems sound around some historical research at a later date and your own choice of checking with other neighbouring owners is also a helpful route to take. A local firm of solicitors may also be familiar with the historical and legal issues involved in the area as well and a local estate agent of some years standing may also have some awareness/insight.

As with all such things though it is often a case of risk awareness/management and this is where an indemnity policy is often sought, invariably to satisfy a buyer or lender as mentioned.

Before you dig too deep though it is often best to resolve the indemnity issue first as being too thorough around the risk can negate the ability to obtain indemnity simply because each piece of research could in some eyes be seen as increasing the risk of the beneficiary coming forward to enforce their ownership/claim for example even if this seems highly unlikely.

Hopefully your own efforts and those of your solicitor will help you to move the matter forward as it is their legal advice which ultimately you should rely on.

System

I thought i would update. At the time the solicitor didn't think it was a big issue. It just went into the background as they went through their searches, queries back and forth etc.

I spoke with her again yesterday and she said the vendor will pay for the insurance (£195) and that her enquiries had led her to believe that this is normal for the area and that she is fine to report back to the lender that indemnity insurance adequately covers the risk.

I do not understand the technical terminology but it was along the lines of the lease is on the land and over 500 years old. It is highly unlikely that it even exists and if it does, highly unlikely the freeholder can be identified. The insurance covers any financial loss should that happen.