Help my friend - I've NEVER heard of this before, is it legal?

micky007

Hi,

My best friend is buying a house and I've borrowed them the cash to pay for the deposit to help them buy their own place. They have been really excited after putting in an offer and it being accepted, today they went to the solicitors to sign the contract and just before they signed they was told a few restirctions that was on the leasehold. Now this is shocking and really need some advice as i want to help them out. Heres just a few restrictions that i have NEVER seen/heard of before and question if its even legal:

1. There has to be an inspection by the leaseholder every year who MUST be able to enter the property, if they dont like the look of anything they then can tell the OWNER of the property to decorate and have it completed within a certain time frame.
2. There has to be an inspection of the gardens by the leaseholder every year, if they dont like the look of the garden or somthing they they can tell the OWNER of the property to make changes to it and have it completed within a certain time frame.
3. There cant be a sky satellite at the front of the house or the side of the house.
4. Only cars are allowed, even on the drive, no vans.

There are a few other weird and not right restrictions in place but the first 2 are the most weird and alarming restrictions. Can someone tell me if that is even legal?


I just dont understand what gives the right for the leaseholder to come into your house and tell you what something needs to be decorated because its not to their taste etc.. It just doesnt seem right at all. My friend call me at 10pm as both him and his wife was panicing and didnt know what to do. I've told them to ring their solicitor first thing in the morning and tell them not to process the signed contract just yet whilst they think this over.


I've told them if im being totally honest dont buy it, as they would technically just become a tenant in their own home being told to make changes etc... and not only that if they come to sell the property then they will struggle to sell it due to these restrictions. They are first time buyers and obvisouly very excited but are now worrying after processing the restirctions, one thing im a bit annoyed of is their solicitor, they went in all excited as they was told they are ready to sign the contracts, just before they signed their solicitor then told them about the restrictions which i feel is very unprofessional, as why was this the first time they was only being told this. Obviously not fully on planet earth with them being excited on signing the contracts they signed the contract still and are now worrying/regretting it after what they was told has sunk in. Their solicitor is supposed to be their client and looking after them, however i feel the solicitor has neglected them and hasnt done their job properly and just want the house completed so they can be paid. As knowing they are first time buyers and obviously going to be excited when told to come to their office to sign the contracts i feel the solicitors have miss-sold them the property and have shown negligence in their duty to look after their client. As surely they should of been told that information in advance to process it/go through it, not being told a few mins before they sign?


Anyway iv told them to make sure they ring the solicitors first thing in the morning and tell them not to process the contrat just yet. I'm going to show this post to my friends so please guys if you can give any sort of advice and also let me know how you would feel if you was in this position, would you buy the house? what would you think?

I want to try and give them as much information as possible before going through wit the house which myself personally feel its not a good idea to do.


Thank you everyone in advance!

MissTasmanian

It is legal and your friend has every right to proceed or not proceed at his desecration.

I also wonder if any of those terms are actually carried out and if so they can't be that bad if the previous owner hasn't bought the freehold.

AFF8879

I've never heard of such restrictive clauses. Having to redecorate because the freeholder might have a different taste to you?! Ludicrous.

I would tell your friend to stay well clear, even if such clauses were amended it would be a time consuming process and you get the feeling the freeholder will still cause trouble.

micky007

No

MissTasmanian wrote: »

It is legal and your friend has every right to proceed or not proceed at his desecration.

I also wonder if any of those terms are actually carried out and if so they can't be that bad if the previous owner hasn't bought the freehold.

My friend said to me he was thinking of asking the current owner of the property about it and if they have had to make any changes as registed by the leaseholder. But then i said to him theres no point in doing that as obviously the current owners would lie and just tell them what they wanted to hear in order to sell the property.

You say the owners of the property have the right to not proceed at his own discretion, are you sure about that as surely if its in a leasehold then by law owners of a property that have leasehold restrictions in place must follow them by law?

micky007

No

AFF8879 wrote: »

I've never heard of such restrictive clauses. Having to redecorate because the freeholder might have a different taste to you?! Ludicrous.

I would tell your friend to stay well clear, even if such clauses were amended it would be a time consuming process and you get the feeling the freeholder will still cause trouble.

Thats exactly how i feel and iv told them not to proceed with buying the house. It just doesnt feel/seem right at all to have such restrictive clauses.

TBeckett100

I'm more concerned you are lending them the money. The mortgage company are going to ask questions about this and unless it is a gift, there may be trouble.

If they can't afford their own deposit, does that sit well that they can afford to repay it? Will you have a charge on the property, can you afford not to be paid back?

Bing2007

3 and 4 are quite standard, though 4 would be impossible to enforce. I presume the place that they are buying is an apartment, or a house in a development of many. These clauses are relatively common though not as blunt as the one you have described. Basically its requiring all the leaseholders to keep their property in good condition so as not to be an eyesore and thereby reduce the value of the properties of your co-leaseholders. Done correctly, it should work to your advantage.

I would verify who the freeholder is. If its a disinterested company or a company owned by the leaseholders, then i wouldnt worry. If its a interfering busybody living downstairs, then I would have second thoughts

marksoton

micky007 wrote: »

Hi,

My best friend is buying a house and I've borrowed them the cash to pay for the deposit to help them buy their own place

Cos that's going to end well....

anselld

You need to get the terminology right and understand what is means...
Your friend would be the leaseholder. That means they are a tenant, albeit long term, but still a tenant. They rent their property from owner of the building (the freeholder) under a contract ( the lease) which can have terms such as restricting changes (usually structural), how communal facilities are used, etc.
It is all perfectly normal, though the lease terms seem more strict than most. Unfair terms can be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal, but that would be expensive and by no means certain of success.

glasgowdan

The solicitor hasn't missold the property.

Your friend should withdraw if they don't like the terms.

The freeholder isn't genuinely going to come and check decoration.

Your friend shouldn't buy a house they can't afford...they should raise their own deposit.

When someone above says your friend doesn't have to proceed, they meant proceed with the purchase.

Is the wording of the lease "leaseholder HAS to do an inspection"? Really?

walwyn1978

Bing2007 wrote: »

3 and 4 are quite standard, though 4 would be impossible to enforce. I presume the place that they are buying is an apartment, or a house in a development of many. These clauses are relatively common though not as blunt as the one you have described. Basically its requiring all the leaseholders to keep their property in good condition so as not to be an eyesore and thereby reduce the value of the properties of your co-leaseholders. Done correctly, it should work to your advantage.

I would verify who the freeholder is. If its a disinterested company or a company owned by the leaseholders, then i wouldnt worry. If its a interfering busybody living downstairs, then I would have second thoughts

Agreed on 3 and 4. These were supposedly in force on our first flat 16 years ago, but neither was enforced by the management company who maintained the estate/owned the lease or operated on behalf of those that do (can't remember who actually did)

My issue would be with the first two, and I would be looking elsewhere on that basis.