50 yrs lease remaining?

rabialiones

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

Indeed, though I have no idea what lenders like to do in such situations.

Incidentally this is a reason to tread carefully, if the lender finds out their security isn't as great as they thought there could be consequences. Of course a good solicitor advising you will be aware of this and ensure such consequences are minimised.

wow! this is getting more complicated
would the lender sue her?

what is the next step advisable for her
1 contact solicitor- although she thinks he could adjust/add letters to file
2 contact negligence solicitor- would solicitors actually do cases against each other?
3 legal ombudsman , but again she would have to try and resolve dispute with solicitor initially
4 contact mortgage company/surveyors to see what info they have on survey report

davidmcn

rabialiones wrote: »

wow! this is getting more complicated
would the lender sue her?

what is the next step advisable for her
1 contact solicitor- although she thinks he could adjust/add letters to file
2 contact negligence solicitor- would solicitors actually do cases against each other?
3 legal ombudsman , but again she would have to try and resolve dispute with solicitor initially
4 contact mortgage company/surveyors to see what info they have on survey report

You said she's already contacted a negligence solicitor - that's probably the best path to take rather than well-meaning advice from amateurs on the internet. Yes, despite popular mythology solicitors get sued by other solicitors all the time.

HouseBuyer77

rather than well-meaning advice from amateurs on the internet

Quoting for emphasis. Certainly my posts are based on vaguely educated guess work.

Potentially big sums involved, potentially ways to mess this up. Advice here can offer some possibilities of what might happen but the solicitor should the first port of call before taking any meaningful actions (obviously paying a few pounds to the land registry to obtain the relevant documents and read them can't hurt. Giving the lender a ring or the conveyancing solicitor could).

Maybe she's got things mixed up and there's nothing to worry about. However ending up spending a few hundred in solicitor costs to have an independent expert advise (even if that advice results in there's nothing to worry about) is probably the best course of action from this point forward.

Reading through land registry documents can help her understand if there is something to worry about. Beyond that I wouldn't speak to either the original solicitor or the lender until she has had advice from the negligence solicitor she's already talking to.

Richard_Webster

We are still waiting to find out whether OP's friend owns both the freehold and the 50 year leasehold or only the leasehold. Untill we know it is all speculation.

Rain_Shadow

davidmcn wrote: »

You said she's already contacted a negligence solicitor - that's probably the best path to take rather than well-meaning advice from amateurs on the internet. Yes, despite popular mythology solicitors get sued by other solicitors all the time.

Whilst I agree with this ^^^

Richard_Webster wrote: »

We are still waiting to find out whether OP's friend owns both the freehold and the 50 year leasehold or only the leasehold. Untill we know it is all speculation.

Not all advice offered here is amateurish.

rabialiones

robatwork wrote: »

5 years ago sold houses are still on rightmove.

Would be interesting for you to look at it and see if the particulars mention anything about leasehold.

Something sounds wrong here though - a 50 year lease on a victorian house. Shame your friend sounds a bit disorganised and doesn't recall everything. Did she keep all the paperwork from the sale and are you prepared to look through it for her?

just looked at houses sold , her property is showing as freehold,

however, a fellow forummer is looking at LR documents for her and
says that it is showing as freehold and leasehold

how reliable and accurate is rightmove data ? any ideas

meanwhile she is looking at legal advice

rabialiones

just been looking at her surveyors report which states

'I believe it is freehold , but needs to be confirmed by conveyancer'

Land_Registry

Rabialiones - can you answer Richard Webster's #38 post please as there is still no clarity around how the FH and LH are registered it seems

Is you friend the owner of the LH 99 year lease? And is she a joint owner of the FH?

Everything else should follow from there so looking at house values/prices, indemnity, negligence and anything else should wait until you know what she is registered as owning

robatwork

rabialiones wrote: »

how reliable and accurate is rightmove data ? any ideas

I would say probably 99.9% accurate when it comes to pricing.

Probably completely unreliable when it comes to particulars like leasehold.

You're best going back to post #38 where a conveyancing expert has asked you all the pertinent questions.

da_rule

The OP gave me the address for the property in question and I have obtained both the freehold and leasehold titles for the property.

Both the freehold title and the leasehold title are owned by the same people (I haven't confirmed with the OP yet that these people are his friends, but it is a man and a woman).

The leasehold title runs for 200 years from September 1910.

There is a mortgage in favour of the Co-Op recorded as a charge on both titles (and the charges have the same date).

Both titles were conveyed to the current owners on the same day and for the same amount of consideration.

I can't see any reason why both titles need to exist. There are some easements dating back to the 1950's to do with rights of drainage through neighbouring properties contained within the leasehold title that are not duplicated in the freehold title, but I'm pretty sure that these could be added if they are still relevant.

The original lease (in 1910's) was for a larger piece of land. Lets say that the OP's friend lives at number 3, the original lease was for numbers 1 & 3 (neighbouring properties), which explains why the title may be separate, as the leasehold land extended beyond the extent of the freehold. In the 50's the lease was split between numbers 1 & 3, so the leasehold title now seems to match the freehold title in terms of extent. It would appear that this splitting happened in the 50's as there's a reference in the leasehold title to an assignment in 1953 which introduced an agreement relating to party walls.