We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help Needed....Our property but cannot use it??
Comments
-
Can I clarify please:
We do own it...it is clearly indicated within the land registry plan that this area belongs to us. We are a freeholder in the building, we have no landlord..we, collectively own the building and land.
Upstairs own there apartment, as do we.
Upstairs own their garden, so do we.
Upstairs do not own the garage block, we own half of it.
Our lease agreement is signed to the old landlord who use to own the building. They no longer own the building.
What is the point in having paid for property and then you cannot use it? That cannot be right?
I see the remarks about not getting worked up over a garage roof. the garage roof is approximately, 75ft by 30ft....it is not small
you are confusing the ownership(shared freehold) with the leases(right to occupy).0 -
It's all about the rights.
You own a share of the freehold, but then individual rights to parts of the building are allocated out via the leases.
Your example is a little more complicated as they should have changed both leases when the rights to this area were exchanged. But the outcome is the same. The area is in your lease, but the rights have been signed over to someone else. That doesn't change when either lease is sold.0 -
The lease stipulates a number of requirements, no pets, there are.
No musical instruments, there are, Piano upstairs etc, etc...
The lease applies when its needed to apply is that what we are saying?
Why have a lease agreed with someone who no longer has ownership? ie the previous owner of the building?0 -
The lease stipulates a number of requirements, no pets, there are.
No musical instruments, there are, Piano upstairs etc, etc...
The lease applies when its needed to apply is that what we are saying?
Why have a lease agreed with someone who no longer has ownership? ie the previous owner of the building?
By all means push for the other parts of the lease to be upheld.
The ownership is the lease. You bought your lease knowing that it did not include rights to this area, so you can't expect it now.0 -
Are you seriously saying that the right of access holds more legal water than ownership?
When it comes to a lease of course it does.
What would you do if the freehold of the property was owned by another party, would you be happy to relinquish use of your flat as it isn't owned by yourselves, you only have exclusive use as defined by your lease, if ownership was able to trump rights of access and use freeholders would be celebrating like mad up and down the country.0 -
The lease stipulates a number of requirements, no pets, there are.
No musical instruments, there are, Piano upstairs etc, etc...
The lease applies when its needed to apply is that what we are saying?
Why have a lease agreed with someone who no longer has ownership? ie the previous owner of the building?
Well as you own some of the freehold it is your responsibility to uphold the terms and covenants of the lease.
The lease isn't agreed with someone who no longer has ownership, the agreements still stand with the current owners of the freehold ie yourselves0 -
The terms of the lease are all enforceable.
If it prohibits pets, musical instruments etc, then the freeholder (in this case you jointly with others) can force the leaseholder in question to get rid of the pet/musical instrumnt.
The same is true for the access. If the leases state that rights of access are restricted in some way, then..... access is restricted.
The original name of the freeholder is irrelevant. There is still a freehold, and a freeholder. It has been sold, so now there is a new freeholder (in this case 3 people jointly).
There are also 3 leases, each with specific clauses which are just as valid now as they were when the leases were created.0 -
The lease stipulates a number of requirements, no pets, there are.
No musical instruments, there are, Piano upstairs etc, etc...
The lease applies when its needed to apply is that what we are saying?
Why have a lease agreed with someone who no longer has ownership? ie the previous owner of the building?
The law does not enforce itself.
The fact that you have chosen not to enforce terms in your favour does not mean that another party cannot enforce terms in their favour.0 -
Still waiting.......still waiting to see what the lease actually says.....
OP - you are obsessed with 'ownership'.
I own a property which I let out to tenants. It is their home. I have some (very) limited rights of access, but certainly cannot use the property as if it were 'my own'.
I have 'given away' many of my rights to the property (in return for rent).
In the same way, the earlier owner of your lease 'gave away' the right of access to this area - and when you bought the lease, you bought it with that restriction in place.0 -
Still waiting.......
OP - you are obsessed with 'ownership'.
I own a property which I let out to tenants. It is their home. I have some (very) limited rights of access, but certainly cannot use the property as if it were 'my own'.
I have 'given away' many of my rights to the property (in return for rent).
In the same way, the earlier owner of your lease 'gave away' the right of access to this area - and when you bought the lease, you bought it with that restriction in place.
Nothing to do with obsession and just because you have a view does not make it correct. Are you a legal professional or just a property owner like me?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards