SOS Adverse possesion of Freehold on my leasehold home

ShatteredDad

hi

I have left this to the 11th hour due to personal issues but I need some rapid advice from someone with any knowledge on this matter at all. I only have until noon today to respond / object.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from the land registry stating somebody was applying for adverse possession of the freehold of my property. It is a house which i purchased last year, it has a 999 year lease with 948 years remaining on the lease with a minimal ground each year, which i paid a few months ago when i received a demand from the freeholders solicitor.

Now, the application for adverse possession is for a number of properties on a few plots of land in different areas of the country, and the 'freeholder' is basically stating that she purchased the 'ground rents' from a company in 2001 who had in turn purchased the ground rents from a company in the 1980's. It doesn't say the name of the company but I would imagine it is the holding company named as the freeholder within the original copy of the leasehold which i have in my possesion. She goes on to state that there were no deeds available at the time of purchase but all ground rents have been paid to her since that time, unchallenged, and no other party has come forward with a claim to the deeds.

Anyway, I am not interested in staking any kind of claim to the freehold myself as I don't have one having only owned the property for 12 months. But I am seriously concerned this is going to have negative implication on my leasehold. The letter from land rag does note that my leasehold will not be affected, but then contradicts itself overleaf stating adverse possession can mean loss of land and the law is complicated in that regard, and that legal advice should be sought. I am trying to translate this to - your leasehold will be fine and it's any other potential freeholder that is at risk of 'loss of land', but I'm still fretting.

The letter is asking for my consent, but it says signing the document can affect my rights, and that signing the document will help them speed up the application but if i don't sign they will go ahead anyway.

My plan of action at the moment is not to sign anything as I don't feel it is necessary and I don't want to waive any rights by signing legal forms i don't understand. I was going to raise an objection but I don't know on what grounds i would be doing so, and to be quite honest i don't want to cause trouble for the freeholder as long as they are not trying to do anything sinister with my family home!

Thanks for reading, hope it makes sense, and please help!

davidmcn

I can't see a need for you to do anything, or that you have any say in the matter. When the LR say that "adverse possession can mean loss of land", in this case they mean loss of any freehold interest you have. Which from what you say is nothing.

AdrianC

ShatteredDad wrote: »

Anyway, I am not interested in staking any kind of claim to the freehold myself as I don't have one having only owned the property for 12 months. But I am seriously concerned this is going to have negative implication on my leasehold.

So why does it matter whether the owner is a company that haven't been involved for nearly two decades, or the one who you're paying the ground rent to?

The letter from land rag does note that my leasehold will not be affected, but then contradicts itself overleaf stating adverse possession can mean loss of land

That's not a contradiction. It's the difference between freehold and leasehold.

I am trying to translate this to - your leasehold will be fine and it's any other potential freeholder that is at risk of 'loss of land'

You are translating correctly.

and to be quite honest i don't want to cause trouble for the freeholder as long as they are not trying to do anything sinister with my family home!

Which "freeholder"...? The one that hasn't been involved for nearly two decades, or the one who's trying to get the paperwork in order for their purchase nearly two decades ago...?


Your lease is your lease. It is between the current owner of the lease (you, documented at Land Registry), and the current owner of the freehold (currently nobody documented, but the person who bought it paperworkless two decades ago is trying to get it documented). If either of those individuals/companies change, the lease remains the same.

ShatteredDad

AdrianC wrote: »

So why does it matter whether the owner is a company that haven't been involved for nearly two decades, or the one who you're paying the ground rent to?



That's not a contradiction. It's the difference between freehold and leasehold.



You are translating correctly.



Which "freeholder"...? The one that hasn't been involved for nearly two decades, or the one who's trying to get the paperwork in order for their purchase nearly two decades ago...?


Your lease is your lease. It is between the current owner of the lease (you, documented at Land Registry), and the current owner of the freehold (currently nobody documented, but the person who bought it paperworkless two decades ago is trying to get it documented). If either of those individuals/companies change, the lease remains the same.

Hi, thanks for your (stern :shocked:) reply.

It doesn't matter to me who the owner of the freeholder is. Not one jot. Hence why I have stated that I don't want to cause issue for the 'freeholder'...and by freeholder I refer to the person making the claim and who I paid the ground rent to. However, as I have no legal knowledge whatsoever I have no idea what implications it has for me as the leaseholder, if any. I would obviously assume it has no implications as I own the lease for 950 years, but then I'm asking myself why the land registry are requesting my 'consent'...

And it may not be a 'contradiction' as such, as you kindly reassure me, my translation was correct but again, somebody with no legal knowledge and a mortgage, reading things like 'loss of land' on a legal document you are being asked to sign is obviously a concern!

And finally as I mention already, I don't want to cause issue for any freeholder and by freeholder I refer to the person making the claim. One does wonder how these things even come to happen though to be honest, very unsure as to how a party supposedly buys title to the land with no actual deeds. Very strange in my opinion.

Anyway, I appreciate your response, thanks

ShatteredDad

The other question is why do these people even bother going to great lengths for a freehold to land that properties with a thousand year lease sit on. She collects the grand total of about £200 a year from the properties on my plot and I don't even see that covers the solicitor fees she must have to pay.

It's a strange country we live in. Even when you own something you don't actually own it!

SmashedAvacado

have you been paying this person / company any ground rent since you bought?
When you bought, what were you told about ground rent by the seller?

moneyistooshorttomention

Have you telephoned the Land Registry - ie to make sure that the letter really is from them?

AdrianC

ShatteredDad wrote: »

Even when you own something you don't actually own it!

But you DO own "something" - you own exactly what you freely bought. You own the 950yr right to live in that property, in exchange for an annual ground rent cost.

ShatteredDad

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

have you been paying this person / company any ground rent since you bought?
When you bought, what were you told about ground rent by the seller?

Yes, I received one demand for ground rent which I paid as requested.

When I bought, I knew it was a leasehold property. There was a slight issue to do with the title deeds or something like that now I remember it though but the solicitor we used didn't seem to think it was an issue. I do have an indemnity policy in my documents that the seller was made to purchase before sale. It covers me up to purchase value and it specifically states it's for the 'good title leasehold'.....or something like that.

I clearly sound very naïve now but I paid a conveyancer to deal with this and as a first time buyer I had no knowledge.

I am now going to assume that the 'freeholder' to the land is unregistered, hence why the seller had to take an indemnity policy out for me as the transfer of leasehold could not be registered with the freeholder at the time of sale? I could be wrong about that but it's all starting to make a bit of sense now, I think

molerat

What does your lease state re increases in ground rent and other charges ?

davidmcn

ShatteredDad wrote: »

I'm asking myself why the land registry are requesting my 'consent'...

I presume they're notifying you as you're in (actual) occupation of the property and have some kind of legal interest, so it's possible you might also have a claim to the freehold.