Legal Definition of "First Floor" etc.

deFoix

Hi, looking for a bit of consensus here :beer: It seems my Freehold Title is messed up as it says:

Flat A [No description]
Flat B First Floor Flat
Flat C First Floor Flat
Flat D Part of First Floor and Second Floor Flat

In fact, Flat B and Flat C are on different levels. I think the confusion arises because Flat B is on what I would call the Ground Floor (at street level). Flat A is what I would call Lower Ground (or even Garden Floor) as its below street level at the font but has back doors that open out to the garden at the back.

Does this even matter? Having said that my solicitor (who isnt dealing with the Freehold) insisted that my lease was changed to reflect the fact that Flat D was "[Part of First] and Second Floor" as it included its own front door and stairs from the first floor even though the main living area is on the second floor.

Thanks

eddddy

There isn't really a legal definition of 'First Floor'.

If the leases are clear about the extent of each flat, there is no real need to change them.

If there is some ambiguity about the extent of each flat, the freeholder and relevant leaseholder could mutually agree to change them - having agreed who will pay the legal fees.

G_M

It doesn't really matter unless or until it starts causing confusion eg to



* the postman
* utility suppliers
* the leaseholders themselves (or freeholder)
etc

Tom99

Its the attached lease plan which matters more than the description.

still_ill_83

Agree with Tom above. The wording doesn't matter a jot. It's all about the extent shown on the lease plan, although it would obviously be helpful if the Land Registry title was updated to reflect the true situation.