Buying a Freehold having owned the house for ONE week only?!

Theonewhoishim

I am interested in purchasing a property, and the seller has only had occupation off the property for 1 week. He is a leaseholder (999 year lease), but does not have the lease, nor is it available on land registry or with the landlord. He is taking an informal approach to buying the freehold off the landlord, but I have a couple of concerns with this:
1- Since there is no lease, can the landlord hold the seller responsible for any breaches? (Given there are copies off leases for the two other properties that share the ground rent to be payed (peppercorn rent) with the sellers property).
2- Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, it is mentioned that the seller would have to have owned the property for at least two years. Does this condition still apply, even though he the seller has taken an informal approach to buy the freehold??
3- Can the landlord impose clauses with the Freehold contract, that would require off me to pay fees for licenses and permissions, even though I would be the new Freeholder upon purchase??
4- If he cannot obtain the freehold, can I just purchase the property.. wait two years without creating a lease with the landlord.. and then to just apply for the freehold title formally?
I am very short on time, and would really appreciate any form off help or advice on this matter. Thanks!

anselld

The Freehold can be purchased informally. The two years only applies to a statutory purchase.

Additional clauses cannot be imposed by the current landlord, however if you purchase the Freehold you will be responsible as the Freeholder for all the obligations contained in the existing Lease.

However, why do you want to buy the freehold if it is 999/peppercorn?
Would you buy the whole freehold or just a third share?
Do you really want to directly manage the Freehold and all that entails in terms of maintenance, etc?

Finally, I guess you know the reason when the vendor is selling after only a week of occupation and you are happy with the reasons. However, not all mortgage companies allow such quick sales due to money laundering concerns.

davidmcn

OP, is this a different bizarre time-critical scenario to that discussed in your previous thread, or the same one?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5962501/buying-property-with-title-but-no-lease

If you keep on needing legal advice at short notice (and given you seem to be out of your depth), I would suggest you get yourself a decent solicitor.

loonywitch

We’re in a similar situation to yourself. We’re just waiting to complete on a leasehold property. The lease has 700+ years remaining and is £12.60 per year but we still would like to purchase it. We found that it affected us getting the best possible rate for our mortgage because lenders aren’t a fan of leases.

Theonewhoishim

anselld wrote: »

The Freehold can be purchased informally. The two years only applies to a statutory purchase.

Additional clauses cannot be imposed by the current landlord, however if you purchase the Freehold you will be responsible as the Freeholder for all the obligations contained in the existing Lease.

However, why do you want to buy the freehold if it is 999/peppercorn?
Would you buy the whole freehold or just a third share?
Do you really want to directly manage the Freehold and all that entails in terms of maintenance, etc?

Finally, I guess you know the reason when the vendor is selling after only a week of occupation and you are happy with the reasons. However, not all mortgage companies allow such quick sales due to money laundering concerns.

I'm curious to know how the landlord could impose clauses from a lease that is missing, without creating additional clauses (catch 22?). The seller would be purchasing the whole Freehold, and so what would that constitute in terms of responsibility with maintenance? Thanks

Theonewhoishim

davidmcn wrote: »

OP, is this a different bizarre time-critical scenario to that discussed in your previous thread, or the same one?

If you keep on needing legal advice at short notice (and given you seem to be out of your depth), I would suggest you get yourself a decent solicitor.

It's a different scenario.

anselld

Theonewhoishim wrote: »

I'm curious to know how the landlord could impose clauses from a lease that is missing, without creating additional clauses (catch 22?). The seller would be purchasing the whole Freehold, and so what would that constitute in terms of responsibility with maintenance? Thanks

Normally the Freeholder would be responsible for upkeep of the fabric of the building, buildings insurance, maintaining and common parts, etc. Albeit that costs can be recovered from the Leaseholders.

You stated that there are three Leases in the block. So presumably the other two Leaseholders can produce Leases which clarify the detail.

In the absence of any paperwork (unlikely) disputes would be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of custom and practice.

Theonewhoishim

anselld wrote: »

Normally the Freeholder would be responsible for upkeep of the fabric of the building, buildings insurance, maintaining and common parts, etc. Albeit that costs can be recovered from the Leaseholders.

You stated that there are three Leases in the block. So presumably the other two Leaseholders can produce Leases which clarify the detail.

In the absence of any paperwork (unlikely) disputes would be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of custom and practice.

Sorry I should have clarified, there are two other properties that are located at different address, and that are not a part of the same building. The three separate buildings (including the house I am interested in purchasing) reside on three separate lands, where the ground rent is split in a non equal way between all three properties. In this situation, what would be the case, based off the points we've been discussing?

martindow

Theonewhoishim wrote: »

I am interested in purchasing a property, and the seller has only had occupation off the property for 1 week. He is a leaseholder (999 year lease), but does not have the lease, nor is it available on land registry or with the landlord. He is taking an informal approach to buying the freehold off the landlord, but I have a couple of concerns with this:
1- Since there is no lease, can the landlord hold the seller responsible for any breaches? (Given there are copies off leases for the two other properties that share the ground rent to be payed (peppercorn rent) with the sellers property).
2- Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, it is mentioned that the seller would have to have owned the property for at least two years. Does this condition still apply, even though he the seller has taken an informal approach to buy the freehold??
3- Can the landlord impose clauses with the Freehold contract, that would require off me to pay fees for licenses and permissions, even though I would be the new Freeholder upon purchase??
4- If he cannot obtain the freehold, can I just purchase the property.. wait two years without creating a lease with the landlord.. and then to just apply for the freehold title formally?
I am very short on time, and would really appreciate any form off help or advice on this matter. Thanks!

What is his explanation of wanting sell a week after buying? I would wonder if there is some major problem with the house and want to be sure that any reason given is the truth. A long peppercorn rent lease is not a problem in itself.

anselld

Theonewhoishim wrote: »

Sorry I should have clarified, there are two other properties that are located at different address, and that are not a part of the same building. The three separate buildings (including the house I am interested in purchasing) reside on three separate lands, where the ground rent is split in a non equal way between all three properties. In this situation, what would be the case, based off the points we've been discussing?

In the case of a single property freehold, if you own both the Lease and the Freehold then you would normally determine (end) the Lease and just have a freehold property.

If they are owned by separate people then yes, I imagine it is difficult to enforce anything either way if all the paperwork is lost. In practice in that circumstance the Leaseholder would probably end up being responsible for everything since they are the only ones benefiting.