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

Kynthia

I won't repeat wars been said in the other comments about terminology, what owning a leasehold property means and that solicitors aent selling so can't miss - sell a property. I think we need the exact wording of the clauses and to know who the freeholder is in order to go any further.

19lottie82

OP aside, as already advised a mortgage company is unlikely to lend your friend the funds if you have "borrowed" (I presume you mean lent!) them the money. You will have to sign a legal document confirming that the money is a gift. Are you willing to do this?

marksoton

glasgowdan wrote: »

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

I've visions of me wandering around my own lounge snagging my own workmanship!

(Or lack of)

Davesnave

It's all Chinese whispers without the exact wording.....

Accuracy is vital, as is knowing the difference between borrowing and lending and the implications regarding a mortgage. There's a real possibility that the OP and friend are the only ones attempting something illegal here.

marksoton

Davesnave wrote: »

It's all Chinese whispers without the exact wording.....

Accuracy is vital, as is knowing the difference between borrowing and lending and the implications regarding a mortgage. There's a real possibility that the OP and friend are the only ones attempting something illegal here.

Let's be honest Dave, the whole things ridiculous.

Someone has posted a vote on a public forum about whether they should "borrow" their friend a presumably large sum of money to buy a property that requires the leaseholder to inspect their own decoration.

As threads go it's comedy gold.

Bing2007

walwyn1978 wrote: »

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.

Sorry OP, it was late, when i said 'these clauses' I was referring to clauses 1and 2.

nicmyles

I've just sold a leasehold flat that had restrictive clauses (not quite as bad as these, mind you), but that did include the Sky dish one, and also one that prevented me from watching TV or listening to music after 11pm. We were also required to decorate the property every five years.

I lived there for four years and none of these clauses were ever enforced - they basically just provide the freeholder with a number of ways they can get rid of problem leaseholders if necessary. The freeholder actually told me that while they wouldn't amend the lease, they couldn't care less whether I had a Sky dish or not. And the only way they would know someone even *was* a problem was if there were complaints from other leaseholders in the building, e.g. about excessive noise at night.

I would suggest your friend talk to one of his potential neighbours, who will most likely have exactly the same clauses in their lease, about what the freeholder and managing agent are like, what the other leaseholders are like, etc. Because while I would give it a 90% chance none of these clauses are in fact a problem, they *are* still clauses in a lease and could be an issue if someone (bafflingly) decided to make it one.

If you suspect that the neighbours are all hateful busybodies and learn that the freeholders actually do come and root around people's flats every year, I'd look elsewhere though.

davidmcn

micky007 wrote: »

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.

Given you've mixed up freeholder/leaseholder, solicitor/client, borrow/lend, and completely misunderstood MissTasmanian's comment, is it possible that something has also been lost in the translation of the above clauses? You obviously haven't quoted them verbatim, and it would be helpful if you could.

Even if the freeholder did technically have the right to object to what colour you've painted your bathroom, why would they want to? I suspect these are actually just (normal and reasonable) obligations to maintain the property.

Is there even an active freeholder?

scriv

No

I would walk away now. Or run...

I have a leasehold property which has a very reasonable and fair lease, but the lease has now been sold to an unscrupulous landlord who is trying to get every pound they can by homing in on restrictions, covenants, consents etc and charging huge admin fees and charges for what they consider breach of lease.

Remember that a reasonable freeholder can sell the lease interest to an unscrupulous freeholder.

I would recommend going through the lease with a toothcomb with their solicitor before making a decision here

marksoton

scriv wrote: »

Remember that a reasonable freeholder can sell the lease interest to an unscrupulous freeholder.

Not without offering you the option first.......