SOS Adverse possesion of Freehold on my leasehold home

moneyistooshorttomention

From memory - aren't freeholders obliged to sell by law (ie whether they want to or no) and there is a maximum price they can charge laid down too???

ThePants999

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

From memory - aren't freeholders obliged to sell by law (ie whether they want to or no) and there is a maximum price they can charge laid down too???

If you go the statutory route, but that's only open once you've owned for two years, so not yet applicable to the OP.

SmashedAvacado

AdrianC wrote: »

They have been in possession. They are simply looking to formalise that possession now.

How can the freeholder be "in possession" of a leasehold house when it is leased for 999 years or whatever and the leaseholder lives there. They can't be in physical possession because that's what the leaseholder has. I'd be keen to understand the basis that you have concluded that the freeholder has possession capable of claiming AP.

davidmcn

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

How can the freeholder be "in possession" of a leasehold house when it is leased for 999 years or whatever and the leaseholder lives there. They can't be in physical possession because that's what the leaseholder has. I'd be keen to understand the basis that you have concluded that the freeholder has possession capable of claiming AP.

"Possession" includes the concept of being in the landlords' shoes rather than actually being the occupier. If they've been acting as the landlord (collecting the rent etc) then I think they can make a case for that.

SmashedAvacado

davidmcn wrote: »

"Possession" includes the concept of being in the landlords' shoes rather than actually being the occupier. If they've been acting as the landlord (collecting the rent etc) then I think they can make a case for that.

yes but does there not need to be an element of factual physical control which could potentially be achieved for example on a block of flats, but could not be achieved on a house where there is no physical control.

davidmcn

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

yes but does there not need to be an element of factual physical possession which could potentially be achieved for example on a block of flats, but could not be achieved on a house where there is no physical possession.

No, there's no need. If you sell an investment property then the new landlord takes possession subject to the tenant's rights under the lease - which in practice may well mean that the tenant continues to occupy the whole thing.

It becomes a bit more nebulous if for example it's a long lease with a peppercorn rent and the landlord never actually makes an appearance to collect rent or enforce the covenants etc.

SmashedAvacado

You do have to be able to demonstrate physical control (i said possession but corrected to control which is the legal standard). I am not sure its as clear cut as you are making out. I would be objecting on the grounds that they are not in physical control

davidmcn

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

You do have to be able to demonstrate physical control (i said possession but corrected to control which is the legal standard). I am not sure its as clear cut as you are making out. I would be objecting on the grounds that they are not in physical control

What other forms of physical control do you think a landlord here ought to be demonstrating?

ShatteredDad

It's all irrelevant now anyway to be honest as the deadline to object was noon yesterday.

End of the day, the way I see it is I bought a leasehold property. If the 'freeholder' has a legitimate claim to it which it looks like they do then I'm not looking to make things awkward.

I'll look to buy the freehold off them at some point next year, in the meantime they can enjoy lunch on me once a year via my £11 ground rent

AdrianC

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

How can the freeholder be "in possession" of a leasehold house when it is leased for 999 years or whatever and the leaseholder lives there. They can't be in physical possession because that's what the leaseholder has. I'd be keen to understand the basis that you have concluded that the freeholder has possession capable of claiming AP.

You - the leaseholder - are in possession of the right to maintain and live in the building.
They - the freeholder - are in possession of the ownership of the ground the building sits on.