Buying freehold of Victorian house (with garden as additional freehold property?)

CWNW

Hi. I'm hoping you can help me understand our situation regarding an extra cost for the garden.

We own the leasehold of the garden flat of a Victorian house and another leaseholder owns the flat above. We are jointly trying to buy the freehold of the property and have been in contact with the freeholders. Our solicitors have submitted our offer to the freeholders and their surveyor has come around to the flats.

A letter has finally arrived stating that they reject our offer but they make a counter-proposal. The letter states:

3. The reversioner does not accept the following proposals contained in the initial notice:
- that the purchase price for the freehold interest in the specified premises be the sum of £30,500
- that there be no price paid for the purchase of the additional freehold property.

4. The reversioner makes the following counter-proposal to each of the proposals which are not accepted:
- that the purchase price for the freehold interest in the specified premises (the building) be the sum of £60,0000

5. That the purchase price for the freehold interest in the additional freehold property (rear garden and front garden) be the sum of £15,000

So my questions are:
- am I correct in interpreting the letter that they expect a separate cost for the garden? is that normal? Or correct?
- we thought when we purchased the garden flat that the garden was part of it. Unfortunately we don't have the lease at hand but I checked the land registry and there are only 2 properties listed for this address. If the garden is on a separate lease, should it not pop up as a separate property on the land registry?
- if there is a separate cost for the garden, does this mean the leaseholder above us shouldn't have to pay for that additional sum? Or if they do, I presume this will mean they share own the garden with us?

Any help to clarify this long and confusing process would be appreciated!

Thanks!

CWNW

G_M

CWNW wrote: »

....
3. The reversioner does not accept the following proposals contained in the initial notice:
- that the purchase price for the freehold interest in the specified premises be the sum of £30,500
- that there be no price paid for the purchase of the additional freehold property.
so they've rejected your offer

4. The reversioner makes the following counter-proposal to each of the proposals which are not accepted:
- that the purchase price for the freehold interest in the specified premises (the building) be the sum of £60,0000

5. That the purchase price for the freehold interest in the additional freehold property (rear garden and front garden) be the sum of £15,000

So my questions are:
- am I correct in interpreting the letter that they expect a separate cost for the garden? That is what you have said is that normal? if there are 2 freeholds then each have a value so it is not unusual to propose a price for each. The reversioner could hav proposed a single price to purchase both, presumably that would hve been £75,000 Or correct? see above

- we thought when we purchased the garden flat that the garden was part of it.
Read your lease. But even you purchased a lease for the garden that does not mean it is not on a separate freehold
Unfortunately we don't have the lease at hand
makes advising you very hard!
but I checked the land registry and there are only 2 properties listed for this address.
It's surprising there are not at least 3! Two leaseholds (each flat) + one freehold (the building, with/without garden). Look again.

What are the Titles listed?

If the garden is on a separate lease,
It's the freehold you seem to wish to buy is it not?
should it not pop up as a separate property on the land registry?
Assuming this is a (fully) registered property, then if the garden is on a seperate Freehold to the building then there should be two freehold Titles listed

- if there is a separate cost for the garden, does this mean the leaseholder above us shouldn't have to pay for that additional sum?
Depends if he wishes to jointly own the freehold or not.
Or if they do, I presume this will mean they share own the garden with us?
It means they will jointly own the freehold of the garden. whether your/their lease includes the garden is a different matter. Check your lease!

Any help to clarify this long and confusing process would be appreciated!

Thanks!

CWNW

I believe you do not fully understand the difference between the lease(s) and the freehold(s).

But until you know what you currently own (read your lease!) it is hard to know what you can, or might want, to buy. Or why.

DandelionPatrol

Who [if anyone] leases the gardens at present? This may have some bearing on understanding the offer.

And what do the leaseholders want to do with the garden?

CWNW

G_M wrote: »

I believe you do not fully understand the difference between the lease(s) and the freehold(s).

But until you know what you currently own (read your lease!) it is hard to know what you can, or might want, to buy. Or why.

We found the title deed with the red line which includes the front and rear garden as well as our flat (which they explicitly state is only the ground floor). The flat above red line is only of the building outline.

So from my understanding, I believe we own the leasehold of the ground floor building and front/rear garden.

Looking at the land registry again, I believe you might be correct. There is another tenure but it's stated as n/a . With no information available. I assume this is the freeholder? Which also leads me to believe that the garden isn't on a separate freehold...?

We are trying to purchase the freehold of the property we currently own the leasehold to. We assumed the freehold and the leasehold would be identical in the plan boundaries (building and garden). Looking through our title deeds and the land registry, I believe we must be correct...? But why would the freeholder letter outline a separate cost for the garden then? If they outline a separate cost, are they implying it's on a separate freehold?

CWNW

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Who [if anyone] leases the gardens at present? This may have some bearing on understanding the offer.

And what do the leaseholders want to do with the garden?

The garden and house was leased to us as one. Specifically, the garden with the ground flat.

The leaseholders (us) would like to own the freehold of the garden along with the flat.

DandelionPatrol

CWNW wrote: »

The garden and house was leased to us as one. Specifically, the garden with the ground flat.

The leaseholders (us) would like to own the freehold of the garden along with the flat.

Then I think [but am not certain] that if you are using a statutory process to acquire the freehold, your freeholder is out of order to attempt to exclude the garden.

agrinnall

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Then I think [but am not certain] that if you are using a statutory process to acquire the freehold, your freeholder is out of order to attempt to exclude the garden.

But they're not attempting to exclude it, they are simply putting a separate price on it. It's then up to the OP whether they want to pay that, negotiate a lower price, or not buy the garden freehold at all. As G_M says, they could have put a single price on the freehold for both properties and the garden, but then the OP wouldn't even have the option option of not buying the garden.

DandelionPatrol

agrinnall wrote: »

But they're not attempting to exclude it, they are simply putting a separate price on it. It's then up to the OP whether they want to pay that, negotiate a lower price, or not buy the garden freehold at all. As G_M says, they could have put a single price on the freehold for both properties and the garden, but then the OP wouldn't even have the option option of not buying the garden.

I take the point, although think that the reversioner's primary offer should be for the leased premises.

G_M

CWNW wrote: »

.....

Looking at the land registry again, I believe you might be correct. There is another tenure but it's stated as n/a . With no information available. I assume this is the freeholder? Which also leads me to believe that the garden isn't on a separate freehold...?

Seems strange. Since the lease is registered I'd have expected the freehold to be registered too.

anyone know why the "n/a"?

booksurr

G_M wrote: »

Seems strange. Since the lease is registered I'd have expected the freehold to be registered too.

anyone know why the "n/a"?

lets see if this thread comes up on the Land Registry rep monitoring and hope they decide to answer

CWNW

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I take the point, although think that the reversioner's primary offer should be for the leased premises.

I agree. I think the freeholder really shouldn't have separated the property lines. It just confused the matter.

If they were trying to aid us by breaking down the cost, their wording didn't sound that way - "... Additional freehold property (rear and front garden)..." Which to me implies an additional freehold property outside of the freehold to the house.