face losing home because I own leasehold

Doozergirl

Do you mean you were the only qualifying tenant because the other property was let out? I don't think it would have needed to be owner occupied, just 'owned' by a qualifying tenant

KiKi

Couple of other points for you that I forgot to mention:

1 - I got out, and now am very very happy in a new flat, where I co-own the freehold and have wonderful neighbours...all that from being SO SO unhappy this time last year, thinking it would never end. So things really can turn around for you.

2 - your local authority should have local advisory services listed on their website who can help you. Otherwise, I've PMd you the number of another service which is local to me - but I'm sure they'll be able to help or refer you to someone who can, and they will give specific advice. They're a charity, and they were terribly helpful to me, even looked at my specific lease and contract. I haven't posted their number etc here because it's a charity with literally a solicitor on the end of a phone, and they couldn't cope with a huge influx if I advertised it!!!

3 - Does your home insurance come with a legal advice helpline? The Abbey have one, so you might want to check yours. Might be worth checking them out if they do.

4 - Also, playing devil's advocate for a moment, it's very possible that the freeholders are quite nice people who just read the situation like this:
a - they own the freehold, and as responsible freeholders they have to make sure the building's safe and protected
b - they've had problems with tenants or leaseholders before, so they want everything in 'formal' writing so that they have an audit trail, based upon their own previous experience of being screwed over
c - they've had problems before with renewing a lease and want to make sure it's all done legally
d - they know the freehold wasn't sold properly in the first place, but that's not their problem as they weren't involved in it...so they feel a bit threatened, knowing you might take action
e - they are well off, and just assume that you're is in the same situation as them because you live in a similar property; they may have no idea at all that you're struggling

I'm just mentioning it because it may be that if you can sit down and have an informal conversation, they come to realise how much this is worrying you. At the moment, it's possible that they have no idea at all, and are just making assumptions based upon their own experiences - and as far as they're concerned, everything's a-okay.

KiKi

starving_artist

Doozergirl wrote: »

Do you mean you were the only qualifying tenant because the other property was let out? I don't think it would have needed to be owner occupied, just 'owned' by a qualifying tenant

Yes, the other property was let out. It makes a difference whether the landlord is resident which makes me think may be it makes a difference if the tenant is. Also is it possible for a landlord to serve a notice on himself after all I read somewhere that he can't grant himself a lease? I know these are completely technical points but that's the reason why I need to ask someone with a really detailed knowledge who can confirm them. Sometimes these things can hinge on a technicality can't they?

tomstickland

The freeholder has to follow a proper consultation process and you are free to submit your quotes that you have obtained for the work. There's a load of information about this on the lease-advice.org website.

starving_artist

KiKi wrote: »

4 - Also, playing devil's advocate for a moment, it's very possible that the freeholders are quite nice people who just read the situation like this:
a - they own the freehold, and as responsible freeholders they have to make sure the building's safe and protected
b - they've had problems with tenants or leaseholders before, so they want everything in 'formal' writing so that they have an audit trail, based upon their own previous experience of being screwed over
c - they've had problems before with renewing a lease and want to make sure it's all done legally
d - they know the freehold wasn't sold properly in the first place, but that's not their problem as they weren't involved in it...so they feel a bit threatened, knowing you might take action
e - they are well off, and just assume that you're is in the same situation as them because you live in a similar property; they may have no idea at all that you're struggling

I'm just mentioning it because it may be that if you can sit down and have an informal conversation, they come to realise how much this is worrying you. At the moment, it's possible that they have no idea at all, and are just making assumptions based upon their own experiences - and as far as they're concerned, everything's a-okay.

KiKi

It's possible what you say might be true but when I have written to them before I have emphasised how much I want to avoid conflict but they have totally ignored this. Also I have to say that when it comes to money even though they might have sympathy for my situation I don't think it will stop them from pursueing the maximum they can get given that they hold all the cards.

Doozergirl

I really do think that you just need to be a leaseholder to be a qualifying tenant. I don't think you can be exempted from legal rights available to others simply because you choose to let the property. The lease website simply mentions that with the Right of First Refusal, leaseholders are qualifying tenants whereas those on ASTs are not. I assume this is to point out who of the two is the qualifying tenant, not to say that because someone on an AST is not a qualifying tenant, that there isn't one, iyswim.

If you wanted to purchase your share of freehold under more usual circumstances, where you can gain that over 50% majority (ie. there are more than two flats or the freeholder is not resident in a block of two) or wanted to extend the lease then as long as you had a long enough lease for the pre-requisite amount of time, you are a qualifying tenant. I just can't see a reason for that being different for the RoFR

I know this is heartbeaking for you and that something underhand has apparently taking place, but I can't see how owning a share of freehold would benefit you in the long term. You are on a low income with two potentially large bills that were going to need paying sooner or later. While having a share of the freehold gives you a 50% say, it may never have been reasonable for you to argue that the roof doesn't need replacing. A stitch in time saves nine; a leak will be more expensive to fix when you end up having to replce the roof as well. You do have the ability to find a good company which will not charge you the earth for the roof,

It's what happens hun People know there is a big fat bill coming at some point and so they sell up because they either can't or don't want to afford it. Take heart from Kiki's experience I too have experience that some houses are just happier places to be because they don't come with a huge burden. There's another regular here who sold up and is much happier knowing that she has lost the burden of debt. I hope she doesn't mind me talking about her

we are here and we will help you as much as you can. I'm really sorry if I'm beating you up a bit. You can tell me to shutup if you like

starving_artist

Doozergirl wrote: »

I really do think that you just need to be a leaseholder to be a qualifying tenant. I don't think you can be exempted from legal rights available to others simply because you choose to let the property. The lease website simply mentions that with the Right of First Refusal, leaseholders are qualifying tenants whereas those on ASTs are not. I assume this is to point out who of the two is the qualifying tenant, not to say that because someone on an AST is not a qualifying tenant, that there isn't one, iyswim.

If you wanted to purchase your share of freehold under more usual circumstances, where you can gain that over 50% majority (ie. there are more than two flats or the freeholder is not resident in a block of two) or wanted to extend the lease then as long as you had a long enough lease for the pre-requisite amount of time, you are a qualifying tenant. I just can't see a reason for that being different for the RoFR

I know this is heartbeaking for you and that something underhand has apparently taking place, but I can't see how owning a share of freehold would benefit you in the long term. You are on a low income with two potentially large bills that were going to need paying sooner or later. While having a share of the freehold gives you a 50% say, it may never have been reasonable for you to argue that the roof doesn't need replacing. A stitch in time saves nine; a leak will be more expensive to fix when you end up having to replce the roof as well. You do have the ability to find a good company which will not charge you the earth for the roof,

It's what happens hun People know there is a big fat bill coming at some point and so they sell up because they either can't or don't want to afford it. Take heart from Kiki's experience I too have experience that some houses are just happier places to be because they don't come with a huge burden. There's another regular here who sold up and is much happier knowing that she has lost the burden of debt. I hope she doesn't mind me talking about her

we are here and we will help you as much as you can. I'm really sorry if I'm beating you up a bit. You can tell me to shutup if you like

I do really really appreciate everything you have said. I know I'm just clutching at straws and people have made some good points which helps me to keep some kind of grip on reality. I am very alone in all of this and it is hard to keep a perspective. I know that owning the freehold or part of it wouldn't really resolve the roof issue but it would help considerably with the lease extension. If owned the freehold then I would be in the position of them paying me for their extension since their lease was created at the same time as mine and that would pay for the roof repairs. I suspect that is why they are not concerned about how much it is going to cost them because they know it will be covered by what I pay them for the extension.

Doozergirl

Sweetheart, if you owned the freehold, you would have paid twice the value of your own share of the freehold. The lease extension from the other flat would not provide you with much profit, if any to pay for the roof, as the original owner would have taken full market value for for themselves. That is indeed if they were wanting to extend the lease at this same point in time anyway - you can't make someone purchase a lease extension when it suits you, you have to wait

Freeholds where the lease is below 80 years are quite valuable.

Doozergirl

A straw poll on here would have most people pulling out the family bargepole if they had to pay £50 for an insurance policy against a Chancel Repair Liability when 35% of all properties fall into affected parishes!

starving_artist

Doozergirl wrote: »

Sweetheart, if you owned the freehold, you would have paid twice the value of your own share of the freehold. The lease extension from the other flat would not provide you with much profit, if any to pay for the roof, as the original owner would have taken full market value for for themselves. That is indeed if they were wanting to extend the lease at this same point in time anyway - you can't make someone purchase a lease extension when it suits you, you have to wait

Freeholds where the lease is below 80 years are quite valuable.

At the time it was sold illegally it was sold for £1000. If I had a case under RFR I would have the right to buy it on the original terms of the sale. Also I didn't realise this but the lease extension costs more than the share of freehold. Even if they didn't want to extend their lease if I had the freehold I wouldn't have to worry about extending mine which would be £15k less to worry about.