Urgent, management company slow, seller threatens to pull out

Emi5

I am hoping for some advice here. I'm in the process of buying a 1 bedroom purpose-built 2007 flat, I'm a first time buyer. The property came onto the market on 27th March and I put an offer in on 3rd April which was accepted that same day. So fast forward to today and I am STILL waiting for 2 final enquiries to be answered by the seller's solicitor. My solicitor tells me that they're being rather vague, not really answering the questions properly, resulting in my solicitor having to ask further questions which is taking up time. I've had my mortgage offer sorted since April and the survey results look good, nothing to be concerned about.

Basically the 2 enquiries they're still waiting on are:

1. Whether there's a possibility of renting out the flat at any point in the future. This isn't a deal breaker right now as I fully intend to live in it and I just want to get onto the property ladder but I would at least like to know the option is there, even if temporarily. I raised this with my solicitor 8 weeks ago as the wording in the lease is unclear and the freeholder STILL hasn't confirmed in writing a yes or a no 8 weeks on. I'm at my wits end. Estate agent has said plenty of other flats on the same development have been rented out over the last few years so they don't see any reason why it would be refused but of course they could not guarantee this. Obviously my solicitor is concerned about covering his own back and doesn't just want to take their word for it and has expressed his concern about saleability in the future so he'd want me to confirm in writing that I wanted him to drop this point so he's not liable. The estate agent has actually put in a complaint to the seller's solicitor for taking so long.
2. The other point is that on 6th August a leak was reported by the resident in the flat below but it was identified as emanating from a pipe that was accessible from the flat I am about to buy, so they had to pull out the (my) washing machine and make a small access hole in the (my) wall. The theory is that it was caused by a nail that had at some point inadvertently pierced the pipe. The pipe is now repaired and all that is left to do is repair the access hole in the flat I am about to buy. The seller said that since he has not used a nail gun in the entire time he has owned the flat, this suggests that it existed before he bought it and it had rusted through over a period of time. We have heard that the freeholder arranged the repair of the pipes, so we are lead to assume that the pipes belong to the side of the freeholder and so the repair of the hole in the wall is also the freeholder's responsibility and presumably falls under the buildings insurance, however myself and my solicitor would like written confirmation from the freeholder/management company that this is indeed the case. I just want to make sure that I am not faced with any big bills when I move in which is think is fairly understandable. Nearly a month on and this has still not been confirmed by the freeholder or the management company! How hard is it to put one sentence into an email?! The seller has even offered a £200 retention as a gesture of good will to speed up the purchase even though the estate agent has deemed it unnecessary but I don't know if it is unnecessary or not because I can't seem to get any clear, definitive answers in written form. I knocked on the door of the flat owner below the one I am about to buy on Saturday and she told me that yes, the management company are arranging for the repair of it and it's nothing to do with her or I but again, it's taking someone's word for it. My solicitor has said that he either wants written confirmation from the freeholder/management company that they will be fixing it and that no costs will fall to me or to make sure the retention fee actually reflects a reliable quote for the repair instead of pulling the amount of £200 out of thin air. At this point, I don't particularly care if it's a few £100 more than £200, my friend's dad is a builder and could probably patch it up himself if it came to it. I just obviously don't want it to run into the thousands which I don't think it will. The access hole is about a square foot.

The seller threatened to pull out of the sale some weeks ago if we hadn't exchanged by the end of August and according to the estate agent, he said it again today if we don't finalise within a few days. The estate agent seems to be taking the side of the seller and making me feel like I am causing hassle. I am going to ask the estate agent if he can put me directly in touch with the seller first thing tomorrow morning so I can at least speak to him and explain I am not messing around here and causing the hold-up.
I am also going to contact the freeholder and management company directly. As I'm a prospective buyer, I realise they have no incentive to help me but it's worth a try.

Opinions please?

hazyjo

As far as the EA goes, the seller is his client as he's the one saying him. Bet your life though he's saying the opposite to his client (the seller). Prob playing you off against each other.

I doubt very much he'll put you in touch with the vendor. The vendor is paying him to act as a middleman. I wouldn't be happy if my buyer got in touch with me direct. Saying that, I was in touch with my vendor and it helped things along. But only because things were amicable and we were initially buying without an EA.

You could maybe arrange another viewing and say you'd like the vendor to be there if poss and speak with them then.

G_M

What does the lease say about letting? Exact wording please@


If it mentions " consent of the freeholder" I doubt the freeholder willrespond. You do not own thelease sohave no relationship with him. If/when you own, as leaseholder you can apply and he'll respond based on the specific circumstances.


The leak seems tobe historic. What is the problem?

Emi5

I appreciate your replies to my long post. The wording in the lease reads:

8a. Not at any time to sublet or create any form of tenancy which allows the tenant to part with possession of the whole of the demised premises or to permit or suffer the same to be done.
b. Not without the lessor's previous written consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) to create any sub-tenancy or other occupancy of part of the demised premises thereof
c. Not at any time to transfer assign sublet or part with possession of the car parking space without the disposition of the remainder of the demised premises and then only in accordance with the provisions of this lease.

Surely points A and B contradict each other which I think is what my solicitor is querying. Although the fact that it says "not to be unreasonably withheld" surely gives me some leeway? Should I just drop this point with my solicitor? Honestly, I'm so stressed I'm tempted to tell the seller I'll pay his September mortgage payment if he holds on a bit longer. I guess that's a stupid thing to do, right? The flat is vacant and the seller has moved away so he has been incurring the costs since April.

Would you be willing to take their word for it regarding the leak?

eddddy

Emi5 wrote: »

1. Whether there's a possibility of renting out the flat at any point in the future. This isn't a deal breaker right now as I fully intend to live in it and I just want to get onto the property ladder but I would at least like to know the option is there, even if temporarily. I raised this with my solicitor 8 weeks ago as the wording in the lease is unclear and the freeholder STILL hasn't confirmed in writing a yes or a no 8 weeks on.

I think that question might be a little misguided. I think a sensible freeholder might just answer "you should read the lease and and take your solicitor's advice".

It's the lease that specifies whether you're allowed to rent out the flat, not the freeholder.

So you should be asking your solicitor for their legal advice on the lease wording.

If the lease wording is unclear, and the freeholder says "Yes - you can sublet", then somebody takes the freeholder to court/tribunal, and the court/tribunal says "No - you can't sublet" - you might want to sue the freeholder for misleading you.

Hence the freeholder won't want to comment.

Emi5 wrote: »

2. The other point is that on 6th August a leak was reported by the resident in the flat below but it was identified as emanating from a pipe that was accessible from the flat I am about to buy, so they had to pull out the (my) washing machine and make a small access hole in the (my) wall.

...

At this point, I don't particularly care if it's a few £100 more than £200, my friend's dad is a builder and could probably patch it up himself if it came to it. I just obviously don't want it to run into the thousands which I don't think it will. The access hole is about a square foot.

It sounds a bit like you're worrying too much. I'd accept the £200 retention - or push it up to £300 or £400, if I was worried.

If it's behind a washing machine, and not visible, you could even put an access panel in the plasterboard, in case the pipework needs to be checked again.

Maybe like this:

Emi5

What would you suggest? That I go against my solicitor's advice?

eddddy

Emi5 wrote: »

What would you suggest? That I go against my solicitor's advice?

Is that a reply to my post #5?

If so, I'd suggest that you might have a conveyancing solicitor who perhaps likes to tick boxes, rather than give legal advice.

In your position, I would explicitly ask your solicitor for his/her legal opinion on whether you can sub-let the flat - and what the risks of sub-letting might be.

Saying "I'll ask the freeholder for their opinion" is really just dodging the question.

But perhaps more sensible questions to ask the freeholder include:

• Have leaseholders ever complained to you about other flats being sub-let?
• Have you ever taken action against leaseholders who sub-let?
• Do you envisage taking action in future against leaseholders who sublet?

But the freeholder may not even answer those questions.

Fire_Fox

Welcome to MSE.

Paragraphs would help: a wall of text is unreadable to many people.

Given the age of the property that access hole may well breach a 'fire compartment'. If so the repair will need to comply with Building Regulations.

babyblade41

It's very difficult with a wall of text so haven't got the whole picture.

From what I do know is you pay X amount to have the advice of a legal professional and explain wordings on documents , so why hasn't your solicitor done this ?

I'm not really sure why a historic leak should cause a problem now

Fire_Fox

eddddy wrote: »

I think that question might be a little misguided. I think a sensible freeholder might just answer "you should read the lease and and take your solicitor's advice".

It's the lease that specifies whether you're allowed to rent out the flat, not the freeholder.

So you should be asking your solicitor for their legal advice on the lease wording.

If the lease wording is unclear, and the freeholder says "Yes - you can sublet", then somebody takes the freeholder to court/tribunal, and the court/tribunal says "No - you can't sublet" - you might want to sue the freeholder for misleading you.

Hence the freeholder won't want to comment.
]

That makes no sense.

The covenants in the long lease (written contract) are between the freeholder (AKA superior landlord) and the long leaseholder (AKA tenant).

Random somebody anybody cannot just apply to a tribunal for enforcement of a restrictive covenant in a contract they are not even party to.

m0bov

Your sol should be able to answer the sublet question on the lease, the freeholder uses the lease to decide.

Ask a surveyour to check the damage, plus get a quote for repair.