Ladybrook securities stopping house from selling.

Vicandste

Anyone had any experience of selling a house and ladybrook securities holding the process up?

They are the free holders and have sent a letter to our solicitor saying that we are in breach of the leasehold contract. They are stating that we have built an extension without their permission.

The extension was built by the previous owners but it looks like a ploy by ladybrook to extort money out of us by threatening to hold the house sale process up. We are near completion stage.

Our solicitor has written back explaining this but I understand they are famed for extorting money by holding up the selling process.

Would love to hear from anyone that has been in a similar situation and how it worked out.

SmashedAvacado

Do you need their consent to move? Often, all you need to do is notify

Do you need their consent to make alterations under your lease?
Have they seen the alterations before?
Have you paid rent since the alterations were known to them/

Vicandste

Fair points. I don’t believe we need their consent to sell. But as they are threatening to sue I don’t think the buyers solicitors will ok the sale with this hanging over it.

There is no ground rent outstanding. And the extension was built prior to this company owning the lease and before we bought the property.

My understanding is they threaten to hold the process up by suing for breach of contract unless you pay a fee for retrospective permission.

Vicandste

Also, we do need permission to make structural alterations. But the extension was built over 10 years ago by previous owners. So yep we have paid rent since the alteration.

SmashedAvacado

if you don’t need their permission to sell, how can they be holding you up? Your solicitors should be writing to them indicating that they have no grounds and their conduct risks you losing a sale for which you will hold them accountable

It’s unlawful to charge a fee for permission.

They can charge their costs for giving permission but as the work was done so long ago thats unlikely to be complicated or expensive. To save time Yiu could execute a licence to alter giving the usual covenants and deliver it to them via your lawyer if you can identify the works but otherwise if the works were improvements then you were entitled to do them with permission and there’s no basis now on which they can hold you up as they were.done so the usual covenants about the works won’t apply.

moneyistooshorttomention

Vicandste wrote: »

And the extension was built prior to this company owning the lease and before we bought the property.

My understanding is they threaten to hold the process up by suing for breach of contract unless you pay a fee for retrospective permission.

Do you have proof of:
- when this company took over the lease?
- when the extension was built?
- when you bought the house.

Surely you'd just have to provide a "proof chain"???
that goes:

- Previous owner put up extension in year x

- Present company bought the lease in year x plus 1/2/however many years it was later

- Send those two "proof items" to present company with an accompanying letter saying "Look - you can see it was done in year x (when previous owners had the house) and when previous company were in position. Therefore it's between previous company v. previous owners and nothing to do with present company or present house-owners.

Have you provided your solicitor/legal executive/conveyancer with those "proofs" and told them to write a letter along those lines to present company?

I would have thought you must be in a similar position to people who buy a house with covenants laid down in the paperwork - but I think those covenants often only apply to the first owner of the house and don't pass on to subsequent owners???

SmashedAvacado

end those two "proof items" to present company with an accompanying letter saying "Look - you can see it was done in year x (when previous owners had the house) and when previous company were in position. Therefore it's between previous company v. previous owners and nothing to do with present company or present house-owners

It doesnt work like that in respect of the owners of the flat - you would remain liable as a buyer of the property for breaches by a previous tenant. However, if the work had happened prior to the freeholder becoming owner (which you can find out online) then this could be more challenging for them to demonstrate consent was needed now.

I would have thought you must be in a similar position to people who buy a house with covenants laid down in the paperwork - but I think those covenants often only apply to the first owner of the house and don't pass on to subsequent owners???

This isnt the case when you have a lease. The benefits and burdens contained in the lease pass to subsequent owners. YOu are thinking about positive covenants on title which don't pass without a deed of covenant structure.

Vicandste

Our solicitor doesn’t think this will hold the process up but I’m not sure. We are flying back from holidays and will speak further with solicitor.

I was asking if anyone had similar experiences because I understand ladybrook are known for being pain in the !!!!!!.

Thanks for the posts though.

Twilliam

Just wondering what happened with this. We have the same issue now...

Mszc2010

We are now in the same situation with Ladybrook requesting retrospective approval for the extension built by previous owners. Is anyone able to share what their outcome was and how it was resolved? Many thanks.

rachel230

Mszc2010 said:

We are now in the same situation with Ladybrook requesting retrospective approval for the extension built by previous owners. Is anyone able to share what their outcome was and how it was resolved? Many thanks.

How do you know that the previous owners didn't pay for permission? Dont trust the Freeholder's word - they have form for this!
Can you check with the previous owners and also check back on your legal enquiries when you bought the property. Your solicitor would have asked this question (re alterations) and it should be in your paperwork.