Freeholder not playing ball on garden transfer..

AdrianC

Back in February, the freeholder had agreed to the sale of 15% of the garden, but the OP hadn't asked their lender...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5410962

Now the lender's agreed to 10%, but the Freeholder's the problem.

AdrianC

tizzle6560 wrote: »

its the latter, but they are basically running the risk of getting nothing as opposed to something.

No, they're not "getting nothing as opposed to something". They are retaining ownership of their land, rather than accept a price they feel too low.

Ozzuk

Tizzle, I don't think you are getting GM's point. Are you trying to sell your lease or the land or both?

If you are selling the lease - then your neighbour does not get to own the land, they will need to set up a new lease with your freeholder. Your freeholder then has another lease to manage. This could be simple to set up, it could also be costly - agreeing ground rent, easements, access etc. If the neighbours later give up the lease then it could become landlocked - courts really don't like that.

I think you are actually trying to sell the land - which means passing the freehold on. You have no rights to do this, as GM says it isn't yours.

Does that make it clearer?

bouicca21

It also depends on what they propose to do with the land and whether that would or would not be to the detriment of the freeholder. My block of flats has a very substantial garden with vehicular access. If someone bought it they could easily put a residential developent on it. Fortunately the lease prohibits such a move (I do so hope that clause is enforceable).

tizzle6560

G_M wrote: »

So in fact you are proposing TWO sales.

1) you plan to sell part of the lease of your garden to your neighbour

2) you plan for your freeholder to sell the freehold to that part of the garden to your neighbour.

That is why I tried to clarify things above - which you erroneously confirmed.

You DO intend for the freehold to be sold, despite not owning it. You ARE bonkers.

Of course the freeholder is going to charge a premium. He is not interested in the sale, so will only agree to sell his freehold if you (or rather your neighbour) offers him a sufficient incentive.

Ok hypothetically speaking then, If someone approached you out the blue, and asked to buy something that is no longer in use; you may have had no prior interest or intention in selling it before, but now someone is willing to take it off your hands for nominal amount (not peanuts) - you would refuse?

MrJB

What are the sums involved? It's all well saying they want 40% more, but if they're only after a few grand then it's not hugely surprising! Difficult to quantify without the actual figures. There may simply not be sufficient incentive for them to do the deal irrespective as to whether they will get any money out of it, undoubtedly it's going to be hassle.

tizzle6560

bouicca21 wrote: »

It also depends on what they propose to do with the land and whether that would or would not be to the detriment of the freeholder. My block of flats has a very substantial garden with vehicular access. If someone bought it they could easily put a residential developent on it. Fortunately the lease prohibits such a move (I do so hope that clause is enforceable).

they want a bit of grass area for their kids to play in. the area in question is the size of 2 small garden sheds side by side

AdrianC

tizzle6560 wrote: »

Ok hypothetically speaking then, If someone approached you out the blue, and asked to buy something that is no longer in use; you may have had no prior interest or intention in selling it before, but now someone is willing to take it off your hands for nominal amount (not peanuts) - you would refuse?

You really do not understand, do you?

The use - or not - of this bit of land is YOUR problem, as leaseholder.

It makes no difference to the OWNER of the land, the freeholder. HE gets the same ground rent from YOU every year, whether or not YOU have a manky shed and lots of brambles in YOUR garden, or if you had it ready for an NGS yellow book opening. HE also gets the full retained value of HIS asset.

However, because YOU do not want to use all of YOUR garden, YOU are expecting HIM to sell HIS land.

tizzle6560

AdrianC wrote: »

You really do not understand, do you?

The use - or not - of this bit of land is YOUR problem, as leaseholder.

It makes no difference to the OWNER of the land, the freeholder. HE gets the same ground rent from YOU every year, whether or not YOU have a manky shed and lots of brambles in YOUR garden, or if you had it ready for an NGS yellow book opening. HE also gets the full retained value of HIS asset.

However, because YOU do not want to use all of YOUR garden, YOU are expecting HIM to sell HIS land.

And what's the downfall of him selling said land, if they now have admitted that it wouldn't really affect the overall value of the FH?

Grenage

Land will generally only increase in value; so unless the freeholder particularly needs money, they are unlikely to be interested. Only an inflated sum would make it appealing.