Victorian house in Sheffield is freehold but subject to a lease

anathematician

Hello all.

I'm in the process of buying a three-bedroom Victorian semi in Sheffield. My solicitor (who is based down South) was alarmed to find that, while the house is freehold, there is also an 800-year-long lease mentioned in the charges register. The lease is dated from 1899. The Title Absolute names the vendor as the proprietor, but the lease is owned by another individual (presumably long-dead).

I've done some digging (including some very helpful threads on MSE), and it seems that this sort of arrangement is quite common up North and particularly in Sheffield, but is relatively rare down South. 

My solicitor is adamant that the freehold and leasehold need to be merged and that my lender may not be happy proceed otherwise. But my own research indicates that it's not likely to be a problem. The estate agent is of the same opinion.

The vendor's solicitors haven't sent a copy of the lease yet, so I don't know what terms are in it. Apparently historical leases of this nature tend to concern things like keeping pigs in the yard and running a tannery on the premises, neither of which are exactly dealbreakers for me.

So, should I be concerned? As far as I can tell, I only need to be worried if the Victorian chap named on the lease were to somehow return from the dead and start demanding ground rent. Or is it possible that someone else now owns the lease? Would that show up on the title register?

I hope that all makes sense. Do feel free to ask for clarification - I've probably gotten the terminology wrong in places. Thanks in advance for your help.

greatcrested

Seems to me the terms of the lease are only 25% of the issue.

The real question is, who now owns it? If some relative of the "individual (presumably long-dead)" pops up claiming they are now the leaseholder, you might find yourself evicted until 2699 when the lease expires.

The lease did not vanish when the leaseholder died. It was an asset of his Estate, so would be inherited by the Beneficiaries. No, given that it was back in th 18 hundreds, the Land Registry would have no record. Does not mean the lease is not sound.

Of course, I live down south, so what do I know?

anathematician

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't sure whether it was possible for the lease to be owned by someone other than the individual named in the charges register (hence my question to that effect in the op).

Is it possible to find out who currently owns the lease? If I were to follow my solicitor's advice and press for the two to be merged, how long would this process take? Would it be costly, and would the cost fall to me or the vendor?

For the record, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on southern folk - I'm simply repeating what I've been told!

AdrianC

anathematician said:

So, should I be concerned? As far as I can tell, I only need to be worried if the Victorian chap named on the lease were to somehow return from the dead and start demanding ground rent. Or is it possible that someone else now owns the lease? Would that show up on the title register?

His heirs would have inherited the lease, and their heirs from them, and their heirs from them.

It may very well never have been registered with LR, because it wouldn't have needed to be until relatively recently (20ish years ago). To register it, the current owner would simply need to produce appropriate documentation.

Of course, they probably simply don't know that they've inherited it, and there probably isn't any documentation.

anathematician

AdrianC said:

anathematician said:

So, should I be concerned? As far as I can tell, I only need to be worried if the Victorian chap named on the lease were to somehow return from the dead and start demanding ground rent. Or is it possible that someone else now owns the lease? Would that show up on the title register?

His heirs would have inherited the lease, and their heirs from them, and their heirs from them.

It may very well never have been registered with LR, because it wouldn't have needed to be until relatively recently (20ish years ago). To register it, the current owner would simply need to produce appropriate documentation.

Of course, they probably simply don't know that they've inherited it, and there probably isn't any documentation.

Thanks for your reply. If the current owner of the lease were to show up, could they kick me out of the property/start charging me rent?

davidmcn

I expect it's the sort of risk which you can insure against - or rather, ask the vendor to insure against.

theoretica

I'd mostly be worried about whether your solicitor is the person you want to continue doing business with.

anathematician

davidmcn said:

I expect it's the sort of risk which you can insure against - or rather, ask the vendor to insure against.

That's reassuring to hear - thanks. I'll bring this option up with my solicitor.

anathematician

theoretica said:

I'd mostly be worried about whether your solicitor is the person you want to continue doing business with.

Oh dear - what makes you say that? Do you think I should switch to a local solicitor?

trex227

I used to work at a conveyancing firm that did home information packs back in the day. We did all of the HIPs for one of the big Sheffield estate agents so I saw hundreds if not thousands of titles of properties in the Sheffield area. The vast majority of terraced houses in the city are leasehold, I think due to most having been originally built by steel mill owners. It would give me pause your solicitor doesn’t know this because that means she has no experience of dealing with them (not that they’re that difficult or unusual to deal with).

If a copy of the lease cannot be located I imagine merging the leasehold with the freehold might be difficult if not impossible. But as davidmcn says this should be something that an indemnity policy can be obtained to cover.

anathematician

Thanks @trex227 - that's really helpful. I'll ask my solicitor to explore the option of an indemnity policy.