Flat without share of freehold – possible snags?

DontTellMyMother

We've seen a flat that doesn't come with a share of freehold. There are other flats in the block but we don't know whether or not they own a share of the freehold. The extended lease has some 120 years to run. Given our age and situation, the length of the lease is not a concern.

The received wisdom seems to be that it's better to own a share in the freehold but what horrible things can happen if this is not the case?
DTMM

xylophone

What does your lease say about ground rent, maintenance and insurance?

When I bought my first property (999 year lease), there was no share of the freehold.

The builder of the block was the freeholder and the leaseholders paid him the ground rent.

He insured the common parts and arranged maintenance and cleaning - there was a requirement within the lease for all leaseholders to insure their individual flats with the same insurer as insured the common parts.

There was a requirement within the lease for the common parts and exterior to be redecorated every three years - the freeholder charged the lessees for this on a pro rata basis - there was no sinking fund.

I had no problems with this arrangement in the six years I lived there.

SeasideSally

DontTellMyMother wrote: »

The received wisdom seems to be that it's better to own a share in the freehold but what horrible things can happen if this is not the case?
DTMM

It isn't always the case that owning a share in the freehold company is best. If the freehold company is run properly by the residents of a block, then yes it is preferable. But I've seen too many run very badly indeed, by leaseholders who haven't got a clue what they're doing and don't want to spend a penny to maintain the place they live in.

If the lease provides for maintenance and that maintenance is carried out when necessary, and if it provides for insuring the building and all the necessities, I'm not sure it matters who owns the freehold.

A group of people trying to sort out a problem whilst having their own agendas can make a pretty big pig's ear of things (and why am I now thinking of the government? ).

G_M

Why not pay £3 to the Land Registry and find out who owns the freehold?

AdrianC

A flat without a share of freehold...


Or, as it's usually known, a flat.


The vast majority of flat owners do not have a share of the freehold.

DontTellMyMother

Thanks for the replies.
Not seen the lease but I found a company address (comment from G_M) and this gives names. However, I might as well get the document from the Registry.
I take the point about leaseholders trying to run a block without professional help - we were in a similar situation once. It was fine till a couple of the key (knowledgeable) directors sold - thereafter it was chaos.
One thing: someone told me that the freeholder of another block sold the freehold and the new freeholder upped the charges drastically. Guess this is a potential snag.
In the present case, a new lift is required but who would be responsible for this? Would it be up to the freeholder, who would then charge everyone whether they like it or not?
All comments gratefully received.
DTMM

xylophone

I think that you need to see the lease.

AnotherJoe

DontTellMyMother wrote: »

In the present case, a new lift is required but who would be responsible for this? Would it be up to the freeholder, who would then charge everyone whether they like it or not?
All comments gratefully received.
DTMM

That's correct but what's the alternative if you needa new lift? How to break a deadlock? Suppose the lease holders own the freehold and some won't pay / can't pay and then you get tangled up in trying to get the money from them, as opposed to letting the freeholder manage that and get cracking fixing the lift.

DontTellMyMother

Point taken regarding another snag when leaseholders try DIY management.
But who is supposed to pay for the lift if there is one person (one company) owning the freehold to all the flats?
I assume that this freeholder will simply levy everyone.
DTMM

G_M

In 99% of cases the freeholder will be responsible for maintaining the building structure and common areas (including lift) and then charging each leaseholder for the cost on a pre-determined basis eg a 2 bedroom flat might pay more than a 1 bedroom flat - but that will be specified in the various leases.

katejo

G_M wrote: »

In 99% of cases the freeholder will be responsible for maintaining the building structure and common areas (including lift) and then charging each leaseholder for the cost on a pre-determined basis eg a 2 bedroom flat might pay more than a 1 bedroom flat - but that will be specified in the various leases.

It wasn't the case in my Ex Warner maisonette in E17. The lease stated that the first floor flat was responsible for arranging repairs to the upper part of the building and the lower flat for the lower part. The other leaseholder was supposed to pay half the costs incurred. When the roof needed repair, the other leaseholder refused to cough up but the work had to be done straight away to avoid damage to my ceilings. There wasn't time to call in a surveyor and go to court over it because of the wet weather at the time (and Christmas in the way).