Last minute legal issue

Lizwenzo

I'm a leaseholder trying to sell my flat and the buyers solicitors have just raised an issue with the following clause. They say it means that if the freeholder and head lease are owned by the same person that my lease no longer exists. I obviously disagree but I'd be grateful for other's views on the words?

"If the Head Lease shall at any time hereafter: a) be merged with the freehold of the Building; or b) be in the same ownership as the freehold of the Bulding; then this Lease shall be construed as if that had not happened."

Thanks for looking!

davidmcn

Is your solicitor not offering any advice?

MEM62

Makes sense, in that scenario the freeholder would effectively be leasing to himself, which is a nonsense.

Why would this clause give you an issue with the sale?

TBagpuss

I'd read it as saying that the lease would be read as they were still 2 separate people, but you need to get your solicitor to advise.

It says '..as if thathad not happened" which seems to be referring to the merge of the head lease with the freehold.

I think it is saying that the terms of your sub-lease remain the same even if the head-lease is merged with the freehold, but your solicitor should be able to tell you and to respond on your behalf.

Lizwenzo

My solicitor thinks that it is not a problem but the buyers solicitor is now requesting that I pay for an indemnity policy, just in case.

I have had multiple issues with the buyers solicitors who seem to come back with very strange points. They say that this clause means that my Lease should be construed as if it never existed so therefore I don't own the Lease and I can't sell it to someone else.

Just to be clear, I'm not the freeholder, I own a leasehold flat, where the freeholder is also the Head Lessee.

This has been raised 5 months into the sale and I'm just trying to make sure that i'm right in thinking this argument is a load of rubbish!

mrschaucer

Lizwenzo wrote: »

"If the Head Lease shall at any time hereafter: a) be merged with the freehold of the Building; or b) be in the same ownership as the freehold of the Bulding; then this Lease shall be construed as if that had not happened."

I think the buyer's solicitor needs to go back to solicitor school. I read that as saying this new scenario would make no difference whatsoever to your lease.
But obviously take your own solicitor's advice.

Margot123

As the sale has been quite prolonged, does your solicitor suspect the buyer is stalling and using this as a way of buying time? Ask them outright.

Jox

How much is the indemnity, just pay it if it will progress the sale?

Asl77c

mrschaucer wrote: »

I think the buyer's solicitor needs to go back to solicitor school. I read that as saying this new scenario would make no difference whatsoever to your lease.
But obviously take your own solicitor's advice.

I agree with this wholly, they are reading it totally wrong. It is saying that if the head leaseholder owns the freehold that essentially makes no difference to your lease and it is as if that merging of the 2 hasn't occurred. I can see why lots has been flagged up if they cant interpret a simple statement correctly.

Lizwenzo

Thanks everyone for reading and responding, it's really appreciated.

Hopefully it will be sorted soon as it's been issue after issue with this sale, mainly because there are 3 solicitors firms involved and two of them seem dreadful!

Thanks again