Leasehold but each occupant separately arranges own buildings insurance?

G_M

You're assuming that either
a) the lease specifies that - they don't alwaysb) the freeholder is present and active - as I said, often it's lack of freeholder that results in leaseholder self-insuring.

Where freeholder is not coordinating and/or insuring, leaseholders would be better advised to get together once a year and jointly insure the whole building under single policy, but again, that depends on them cooperating.....

mcgrath10

Hi,
I've got an enquiry about a bankrupt freeholder.
I own two adjoining flats on a lane in Chester. The freeholder is bankrupt, the freehold is in the hands of bankruptcy trustees. I purchased one of the flats in 2003 and my solicitor didn't notify the freeholder as far as i'm aware, and i assumed he was absent. I purchased the other flat recently, with my solicitor unwilling to proceed without the permission of the trustees, the sale went ahead, but took ages due to the dawdling of the trustees. I am renovating both flats and will be selling them in a few months. Do i need forms signed etc by the trustees or can i sell the properties and notify them within 28 days of the sale? I don't want to have to deal with them as they can potentially delay a sale. Both flats have long leases and a peppercorn rent of £1 a year which has never been collected. I assume the freehold is pretty much worthless.

xylophone

I had a 999 year lease flat.

The lease stipulated that the freeholder insured the common parts and that all leaseholders insured their individual flats with the same insurance company as used for the common parts.

Thus there was no problem with the claim when the roof was affected by a leak of water which damaged the interior walls of the underlying flats.

G_M

xylophone wrote: »

I had a 999 year lease flat.

The lease stipulated that the freeholder insured the common parts and that all leaseholders insured their individual flats with the same insurance company as used for the common parts.

Thus there was no problem with the claim when the roof was affected by a leak of water which damaged the interior walls of the underlying flats.

Well good for you.

But just because your lease specified this, and your freeholder, and leasholders, all complied with the lease requirements, does not help the OP, or others where the lease is deficient, or the lease is ignored.

NeilCr

G_M wrote: »

It's not that unusual for leaseholders to each provide their own buildings insurance. Either because that's what the lease stipulates, or because the freeholder is absent, or fails to insure, and leaseholders take over because it's 'easier' than chasing the freeholder

Have you got a link for this assertion. I am not disputing it but I have a friend who is in a somewhat similar situation as the OP

He pointed me at this

http://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/living-in-leasehold-flats-a-guide-to-how-it-works/

when I mentioned this thread and your post over a beer today.

The link says that it is normal for the lease to provide for the freeholder to arrange the building insurance. Now I fully recognise that there are occasions when the freeholder doesn't do this but am a bit surprised about your "not unusual" comment. In my (admittedly limited) experience it is very unusual

Cheers for any information you can provide

G_M

I'm not going to get into a discussion about what % of insurance arrangements constitutes 'normal' Vs 'not unusual' Vs 'unusual'!

Yes, much more common for freeholders to arrange, but the arrangement described here by the OP is ..... what term can I use?..... not the first such arrangement I've come across, either here on the forum or indeed in 'real life'.

NeilCr

G_M wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a discussion about what % of insurance arrangements constitutes 'normal' Vs 'not unusual' Vs 'unusual'!

Yes, much more common for freeholders to arrange, but the arrangement described here by the OP is ..... what term can I use?..... not the first such arrangement I've come across, either here on the forum or indeed in 'real life'.

Okay

So little evidence then for "not unusual" which was what I was asking for? I'm not talking about % of unusual v not unusual. Just where you are getting your information from when you are saying it is "not unusual"

:(

Friends freeholder said the same as you and we couldn't find anything to support this

G_M

NeilCr wrote: »

...Just where you are getting your information from when you are saying it is "not unusual"

As I said: both here on the forum and in 'real life'.

OP asked:

can anyone give any advice on whether it is normal for leaseholders to.....

and my message for the OP was/is that whilst it's not 'normal' (the only or most common arrangement) it's also not unique of unheard of.

As with any property decision the important thing is to understand the pros and cons.

If OP is still following the thread he'll have got the message by now!

sparky130a

NeilCr wrote: »

Just where you are getting your information from when you are saying it is "not unusual"

Tom Jones said so.

Rosemary7391

I'll hazard a guess that this sort of arrangement is more common in Scotland where flats are more likely to be freehold. I insure my flat separately. I never had any problems getting quotes, so I guess the insurance companies have a way of sorting things out should the worst happen! Otherwise they wouldn't quote. Other flats being uninsured could cause headaches (no one has ever asked to see my policy), but it must be something factored in when insurance companies cover an individual flat?