Last minute title issues - a long forgotten lease

bigfoot371

bobobski wrote: »

My biggest concern for you is how on earth your solicitor advised you to exchange (if indeed they did) with this issue unresolved. I'd say that's bordering on malpractice. Although I haven't read all the replies in detail so I could have missed something. (Hey, I'm off the clock.)

My solicitor gave me the option but strongly advised waiting until it's cleared. I phoned a lawyer friend who reiterated not to sign (just to make sure my sol's weren't being overly cautious - I was desperate to complete last week!).

Hopefully, tomorrow is the day for good news.

Hoploz

Any news yet?

PersianCatLady

I'm being advised by multiple advisors not to buy with the lease.
So really you know that you would be foolish to buy it as is.


If I were you I would also be thanking my lucky stars that this was spotted before I had purchased the house.


PPL say there is no risk, but won't put the indemnity on it to prove it.
That makes it more worrying because if there is absolutely nothing to worry about, why won't they put the indemnity on it?

Irratus_Rusticus

bigfoot371 wrote: »

The issue was that in 1960 odd a lady took a 99 year lease on the property. The property is freehold and I'm buying the freehold. My solicitor had phoned the Land Registry who advise they should be able to have it removed, but no promises.

The sellers solicitor (Premier Property Lawyers) didn't want to do anything, they told the sellers it had expired and was nothing to worry about as it had expired (Nothing on land reg to say this). They messeged me to say I'm just making a fuss, it's no big deal (paraphrasing). My solicitor told me it meant the lady could turn up and request the use of the house. The requested for PPL to have the lease removed as a condition of sale a while back.

Mm. So a lease title was sold but the property remains freehold? Very interesting.

And a 99 year lease issued in 1960 has expired? Must check the battery in my calculator.

The land registry offer a procedure to remove a leasehold title and the rep above mentions two relevant options: by law or by forfeiture.

Unless I'm missing something surely both mean a court determination? And that costs somebody?

After all, the OP presumably only has the vendor's word for it that the lessee (with a lease far from expired with 56 healthy years to run and a right to extend by 90 years) is non-existent?

Imagine, if you will, a theoretical case of a lady lessee going overseas for some reason, perhaps in search of a lost love, always faithfully paying the ground rent and then tragically deceasing alone without finding her love, and a cynical freeholder (no, surely they can't exist) simply sells the property on and matters reach exactly where the OP's circumstances arise?

Just because it's hypothetical doesn't make it less farcical than being told a 99 year lease has expired.

Without a court determining that a lease is truly a legally dead parrot or is happy all steps have been taken to trace the original assignee, or forfeits the lease, what protects ANY leaseholder's legal interests?

Madness to buy. There may be a will somewhere in the lessee's name, even if the poor 'lady' was a victim of a heinous crime and is even as we speak buried at the back of the bin stores ( or sealed under the bathroom floorboards). I'd have a surveyor double check! :rotfl:

bobobski

Irratus_Rusticus wrote: »

Mm. So a lease title was sold but the property remains freehold? Very interesting.

And a 99 year lease issued in 1960 has expired? Must check the battery in my calculator.

The land registry offer a procedure to remove a leasehold title and the rep above mentions two relevant options: by law or by forfeiture.

Unless I'm missing something surely both mean a court determination? And that costs somebody?

After all, the OP presumably only has the vendor's word for it that the lessee (with a lease far from expired with 56 healthy years to run and a right to extend by 90 years) is non-existent?

Imagine, if you will, a theoretical case of a lady lessee going overseas for some reason, perhaps in search of a lost love, always faithfully paying the ground rent and then tragically deceasing alone without finding her love, and a cynical freeholder (no, surely they can't exist) simply sells the property on and matters reach exactly where the OP's circumstances arise?

Just because it's hypothetical doesn't make it less farcical than being told a 99 year lease has expired.

Without a court determining that a lease is truly a legally dead parrot or is happy all steps have been taken to trace the original assignee, or forfeits the lease, what protects ANY leaseholder's legal interests?

Madness to buy. There may be a will somewhere in the lessee's name, even if the poor 'lady' was a victim of a heinous crime and is even as we speak buried at the back of the bin stores ( or sealed under the bathroom floorboards). I'd have a surveyor double check! :rotfl:

If I'm reading your post correctly, you don't seem to understand the nature of a leasehold interest in land. There is no such thing as a leasehold interest without a freehold interest sitting above it; otherwise, who would grant the lease? and what would happen when it expires? and whom does the tenant ask for an extension? etc.

OP is looking at buying the freehold (as stated in the original post) but naturally wants vacant possession, which involves (inter alia) no continuing leases. Hence the issue. No point buying a house if a long lost tenant can come back and sue you for breach of quiet enjoyment.

Irratus_Rusticus

bobobski wrote: »

If I'm reading your post correctly, you don't seem to understand the nature of a leasehold interest in land. There is no such thing as a leasehold interest without a freehold interest sitting above it; otherwise, who would grant the lease? and what would happen when it expires? and whom does the tenant ask for an extension? etc.

OP is looking at buying the freehold (as stated in the original post) but naturally wants vacant possession, which involves (inter alia) no continuing leases. Hence the issue. No point buying a house if a long lost tenant can come back and sue you for breach of quiet enjoyment.

Methinks you have NOT read my post correctly in your apparent haste to put down. Or perhaps irony is lost on you? Please read again and perhaps other posts from me on matters of leasehold before lecturing a contributor.

Why highlight "no, surely they can't exist"? Surely not another case of the misapplied pronoun? Did you infer I don't think freeholders exist? Or do you not believe cynical freeholders exist? English is such a slippery language, innit?

To spell it out in simpler language: I was merely pointing out that in this case a 99 year lease title still exists carved out of the freehold title (how nice of you to explain how this happens) and yet the property was apparently being sold as an unfettered freehold title until an "expired" lease just happens to be revealed.

For a land expert like yourself I should have thought you would have understood the point being made. Or shall I explain 'unfettered'?

bobobski

Irratus_Rusticus wrote: »

Methinks you have NOT read my post correctly in your apparent haste to put down. Or perhaps irony is lost on you? Please read again and perhaps other posts from me on matters of leasehold before lecturing a contributor.

Why highlight "no, surely they can't exist"? Surely not another case of the misapplied pronoun? Did you infer I don't think freeholders exist? Or do you not believe cynical freeholders exist? English is such a slippery language, innit?

To spell it out in simpler language: I was merely pointing out that in this case a 99 year lease title still exists carved out of the freehold title (how nice of you to explain how this happens) and yet the property was apparently being sold as an unfettered freehold title until an "expired" lease just happens to be revealed.

For a land expert like yourself I should have thought you would have understood the point being made. Or shall I explain 'unfettered'?

Wowza, calm down. A lot of people on this board don't necessarily know how freeholds/leaseholds work so I wasn't completely out of place to think you might be one of them, especially given what you actually said in your post. Reading it as somebody who didn't know you were being "ironic", it does read as though you don't understand, and I was trying to be helpful. Perhaps it wasn't necessary for you after all, but hopefully it will clear it up for other people reading this later. In the meantime, I politely suggest you untangle your knickers.

PersianCatLady

Mm. So a lease title was sold but the property remains freehold? Very interesting.
Actually it is not interesting at all.


A lease can be issued on any freehold land and when the lease expires it then reverts back to the freeholder.


I actually cannot think of any situation in which a leasehold property doesn't have an underlying freehold.