Offering on house that is leasehold - advice needed

sparky130a

Whether it's leasehold or not isn't really relevant. It's what said lease says ( or doesn't say ) that matters.

AdrianC

sparky130a wrote: »

Whether it's leasehold or not isn't really relevant. It's what said lease says ( or doesn't say ) that matters.

If it isn't leasehold, there isn't a lease to say anything.

sparky130a

AdrianC wrote: »

If it isn't leasehold, there isn't a lease to say anything.

Granted, but i'm sure you see my point. Especially on a 999 lease.

It's the restrictions and obligations of said lease that matter.

Typhoon2000

One could always buy the freehold after 2years and be freed from any restrictions in the lease. A long lease and zero ground rent means you probably only have solicitors to pay for.

AlexMac

As others above have said, and subject to there being nothing silly in the lease (e.g. ground rent doubling every 10 years so it eventually gets horrendous; the Taylor Wimpy scam revealed recently- https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/05/ground-rent-scandal-engulfing-new-home-buyers-leasehold )...

..this seems to be no problem, in that it's common in some geographical areas; including, in the south, the Isle of Wight where our kids bought a few years ago...

A Victorian house, which had been sold on many times without anyone seeming to worry that the 999 year lease was vague in the extreme in that it didn't specifically refer to the house, but rather, to the whole field on which the street and terrace was built in 1901 or so.

However, luckily (or unluckily depending on your viewpoint) our kids solicitor, with her fancy London ways, said this was unacceptable, and that they should back out, as in her view, this would impede future sale. They responded that the house was ideal, they wanted it, and they wanted the tenure sorted. So after much jockeying about between the solicitor, the land registry, the ancient estate which (as expert Webster suggested above) still notionally owned the field, and much burrowing in dusty red-tape-bound folders, they bought the freehold.

It cost a few ton, but they can now sell on to another fussy "blow-in" from the big smoke if it happens.

But if your lawyer says its OK, go for it, as they probably would have done if they'd used a local, less picky conveyancing solicitor who knew the Island ways were different ways! After all, many homes where they live didn't even start getting on to the Land Register til the 90's

dpullen1987

Thank-you everyone for your advice and comments, i bought the title register from the land registry and it states the below.

Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s))
under which the land is held:
Date : 26 January 1939
Term : 999 years from 25 December 1938
Parties : (1) Alfred James Cornish and William Frederick Blakemore
(2) William James Little
NOTE: The original lease has been mislaid. The above details are taken
from a certified copy of the original lease.
The title includes any legal easements granted by the
registered lease but is subject to any rights that are granted or
reserved by the said lease and affect the registered land.

SensibleSarah

My house (Liverpool) is leasehold. It was advertised as Freehold (being sold via EA by family of deceased owner) and I had not idea it wasn't freehold until my solicitor dug up the info quite far down the line - by which point I was pretty committed financially and decided to continue even though I was a little worried that it could cause issues further down the line.

Mine was 999 year lease, taken out in 1964, so obviously not an issue of it expiring any time soon! At first it was thought to be an absentee freeholder, but turned out to be Liverpool City Council who hold the freehold. Peppercorn rent due apparently - whatever you make of that I've not heard anything regarding the lease, ground rent or ownership of property in the 6+ years I've lived there.

I have a shared alleyway to both back gardens with my next door neighbour, so apparently this means freehold can never be bought. Although perhaps it's possible for my neighbour and I to buy it together? Never looked into it as it's not something I could afford in the forseeable anyway. As it's the council who own the lease, solicitors decided indemnity insurance not required in my case.

I've had absolutely no problems with anything related to the lease so far. It could, of course, be off-putting to future buyers if I ever sell, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Feels a bit strange owning a house that I'll never actually own - but that's the only difference I've found.

dpullen1987

Thanks for all the replies, they were really useful.


Given the uncertainty over the property being leasehold we have decided to withdraw our offer.


Thanks,

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

moneyistooshorttomention

SensibleSarah wrote: »

I have a shared alleyway to both back gardens with my next door neighbour, so apparently this means freehold can never be bought. Although perhaps it's possible for my neighbour and I to buy it together? Never looked into it as it's not something I could afford in the forseeable anyway. As it's the council who own the lease, solicitors decided indemnity insurance not required in my case.

I've had absolutely no problems with anything related to the lease so far. It could, of course, be off-putting to future buyers if I ever sell, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Feels a bit strange owning a house that I'll never actually own - but that's the only difference I've found.

That sounds odd to me - "cant be freehold - because of shared back alley". My last house had a shared back alley (ie only shared with a handful of other houses) - but it was definitely freehold.

So - I don't follow how that would work that a shared back alley would prevent a "freehold"?

The Council could perfectly well own the alley - whilst the owners owned their own houses. That was the position we had.

SensibleSarah

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That sounds odd to me - "cant be freehold - because of shared back alley". My last house had a shared back alley (ie only shared with a handful of other houses) - but it was definitely freehold.

So - I don't follow how that would work that a shared back alley would prevent a "freehold"?

The Council could perfectly well own the alley - whilst the owners owned their own houses. That was the position we had.

I didn't explain that very well, sorry.
The alleyway flies beneath the overhang where the upstairs of the 2 properties meet (terraced houses) and I get the bit at the front over the alley, my next-door neighbours get the bit at the back. So as the properties cannot be divided vertically, they can't each have individual freehold. Or so I have been told...