face losing home because I own leasehold

snowmaid

Bearing in mind that I know nothing about property :rolleyes: The people in the above flat own the freehold and leasehold? Or have freehold or whatever!

So, if you were out or were forced to sell, they could buy the freehold on your flat as well? That would give them freehold over the whole building? Maybe being able to convert back into a house etc?

Is it possible that your LL could receive more from the people above you than the leasehold you extend?


If this is so....I think I smell a rat.......!

Doozergirl

Oh...my....God. That's rough.

KiKi

snowmaid wrote: »

Bearing in mind that I know nothing about property :rolleyes: The people in the above flat own the freehold and leasehold? Or have freehold or whatever!

So, if you were out or were forced to sell, they could buy the freehold on your flat as well? That would give them freehold over the whole building? Maybe being able to convert back into a house etc?

Is it possible that your LL could receive more from the people above you than the leasehold you extend?


If this is so....I think I smell a rat.......!

Almost...! There is one freehold for a building, and these guys already have it. Each flat in it has a leasehold. Even as a freeholder, you are effectively 'leasing' your flat to yourself.

I share a building with two other people, in three properties - one each. We have a 33.3% share of the freehold each, because we paid equal amounts. We effectively lease the flats to ourselves....my lease means I have to pay 27.5%, so does one other flat owner, and the last one has to pay 45% on her lease. But we are equal freeholders.

But you're right - if they bought the OP's flat, they could possibly reconvert if they were allowed.

Doozergirl

Two flats would usually be worth more than one house. I doubt there is any malice but of course they don't care that the OP has been royally screwed over by someone else as the money is in their pocket and it's 'not their fault'.

I entirely understand why you are upset now, artist.

starving_artist

snowmaid wrote: »

Bearing in mind that I know nothing about property :rolleyes: The people in the above flat own the freehold and leasehold? Or have freehold or whatever!

So, if you were out or were forced to sell, they could buy the freehold on your flat as well? That would give them freehold over the whole building? Maybe being able to convert back into a house etc?

Is it possible that your LL could receive more from the people above you than the leasehold you extend?


If this is so....I think I smell a rat.......!

That is exactly my fear. And yes if even if they bought my flat as opposed to repossessing it they would still have paid less than the going price for a whole house in my area.

snowmaid

KiKi wrote: »

Almost...! There is one freehold for a building, and these guys already have it. Each flat in it has a leasehold. Even as a freeholder, you are effectively 'leasing' your flat to yourself.

Errmmm.....I will take your word for it!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks!

KiKi

The freehold / leasehold thing is just ridiculous, but you can't have a freehold flat. As a leaseholder, you own the flat, and are responsible for its interior. The freehold means effectively that you own the land the block is built upon, and you have overall responsibility for any communal areas, the outside of the building (such as guttering, window frames, front doors).

If you have the leasehold, you don't have a Landlord because you own the place. But the freeholder acts as a bit of a landlord with regards to the outside of the building. The freeholder might live there or not, and might not own a leasehold to any of the flats. In Brighton, lots of people own hundreds of freeholds (as they make a bit of money from them by charging ground rent of, say, £50 a year per leaseholder) but live in London somewhere! Sometimes the freeholder appoints a Managing Agent to manage the building, which is even more of a nightmare.

The freehold allows for someone to take charge of the building's maintainence, whilst the lease specifies what charge you have to pay towards it, as well as other terms and conditions (such as no playing loud music after 11pm).

fimonkey

Sorry to hijack this thread, though I think it's more relevant here than in a new thread perhaps.....

If I were to buy a flat that was offered as 'freehold' .. say it's an old converted house, two flats, and I were to buy the upstairs flat that was offered as freehold (whole freehold, not part of). And also say that the upstairs flat I was buying is now vacant possession but previously had tenants in it (i.e. the owner did not live there).

1. Would the leaseholder downstairs who does occupy the flat, by law, have to have right to buy the freehold first? If so, can someone point me in the direction of this 'law/rule' please?

2. How would I know that the leaseholder in the flat below had been offered the freehold and refused, without specifically asking them? (Would the vendor of the upstairs flat have to declare this was that case etc)?

3. If I were to buy the upstairs flat with freehold, then the leasholder downstairs challenged it on the basis they did not get first refusal, what would happen?

Many thanks, if you think this should be in a new thread, please say so (or mods feel free to move).

KiKi

As far as I understand it:

1 - No. The freehold is already owned by the flat upstairs, so it's sold with the flat. The current leaseholder downstairs only has the right to purchase it by law if the freeholder sells the top flat as a leashold, *then* offers the freehold separately. Then, by law, he has to offer it to both leaseholders before going to the open market. All qualifying tenants have first refusal before the freeholder goes to the open market.

2 - You don't! That's something your solicitor would have to ask. But as I'm pretty sure that '1' applies, then it's not an issue.

3 - Nothing, I think. Especially as they weren't entitled to it in the first place.

I part own the freehold to my flat. If I sell it, I don't have to offer it first to the other two leaseholders / freeholders. I sell it *with* the flat. If I owned the whole freehold, and wanted to advertise to sell it, *that's* when I have to offer it to the other freeholders first.

I'm pretty damn sure that's correct, but do check with someone who knows more about this law than I do!

HTH.

KiKi

starving_artist

fimonkey wrote: »

Sorry to hijack this thread, though I think it's more relevant here than in a new thread perhaps.....

If I were to buy a flat that was offered as 'freehold' .. say it's an old converted house, two flats, and I were to buy the upstairs flat that was offered as freehold (whole freehold, not part of). And also say that the upstairs flat I was buying is now vacant possession but previously had tenants in it (i.e. the owner did not live there).

1. Would the leaseholder downstairs who does occupy the flat, by law, have to have right to buy the freehold first? If so, can someone point me in the direction of this 'law/rule' please?

2. How would I know that the leaseholder in the flat below had been offered the freehold and refused, without specifically asking them? (Would the vendor of the upstairs flat have to declare this was that case etc)?

3. If I were to buy the upstairs flat with freehold, then the leasholder downstairs challenged it on the basis they did not get first refusal, what would happen?

Many thanks, if you think this should be in a new thread, please say so (or mods feel free to move).

This is exactly what I mean when I said that the freehold had been sold illegally over my head. If the landlord is not resident they have to offer it to the leaseholders before selling it. It's called Right of First Refusal. You must clarify it with the freeholder if he has done this. You will have to serve notices on the leaseholder after you buy it and the leaseholder can challenge the sale and acquire it from you on the same terms you bought it. In my case no notices were ever served so I was kept in ignorance of my rights.

From your point of view I think you can also take out something called Defective Title insurance.