Victorian house in Sheffield is freehold but subject to a lease

eddddy

anathematician said:

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 think you may be confused.

If the Title Absolute of the lease names the vendor as the proprietor - then the vendor owns the leasehold of the property.

I suspect the 'long dead person' is an original party to the lease - i.e. they bought the original lease in 1899, and it has since been sold on many times, eventually to the current vendor.

anathematician said:

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.

So your solicitor is saying that the current vendor owns both the freehold and the leasehold.

That's probably because they bought it as a leasehold property, and later bought the freehold. And your solicitor is saying that your mortgage lender wants both titles merged on completion.

If that's all correct, it's a very normal situation - both down south and up north.

anathematician

eddddy said:

anathematician said:

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 think you may be confused.

If the Title Absolute of the lease names the vendor as the proprietor - then the vendor owns the leasehold of the property.

I suspect the 'long dead person' is an original party to the lease - i.e. they bought the original lease in 1899, and it has since been sold on many times, eventually to the current vendor.

anathematician said:

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.

So your solicitor is saying that the current vendor owns both the freehold and the leasehold.

That's probably because they bought it as a leasehold property, and later bought the freehold. And your solicitor is saying that your mortgage lender wants both titles merged on completion.

If that's all correct, it's a very normal situation - both down south and up north.

You're absolutely right - I am confused But your reply has reassured me no end. Thanks.

For what it's worth, here's exactly what it says on the Title Register (with names and addresses redacted):

Title absolute

1 (04.07.1989) Proprietor: VENDOR 1 and VENDOR 2 his wife, both of THE PROPERTY, Sheffield, S Yorkshire.

C: Charges Register

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

 1      Lease dated 2 September 1899 to VICTORIAN CHAP for 800 years from 25
        March 1899

        NOTE: The lease comprises also other land

End of register

anathematician

anathematician said:

For what it's worth, here's exactly what it says on the Title Register (with names and addresses redacted):

Title absolute

1 (04.07.1989) Proprietor: VENDOR 1 and VENDOR 2 his wife, both of THE PROPERTY, Sheffield, S Yorkshire.

C: Charges Register

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

 1      Lease dated 2 September 1899 to VICTORIAN CHAP for 800 years from 25
        March 1899

        NOTE: The lease comprises also other land

End of register

Does this mean that the vendors own the leasehold? This is from the Title Register that I downloaded from the Land Registry. My solicitor has not been sent the actual lease.

eddddy

anathematician said:

Does this mean that the vendors own the leasehold? This is from the Title Register that I downloaded from the Land Registry. My solicitor has not been sent the actual lease.

Yep - the vendors own the leasehold.

Have you also downloaded the Title Register for the freehold? Hopefully, you will find that both vendors (or maybe just one of them) own that as well. If so, the titles can be merged. 

The main issue might be the extra legal work involved - you should probably ask your solicitor for a revised quote.

Sometimes there are also complications if the lease gives you rights which aren't mentioned in the freehold (e.g. a right of access down a path... or the right to graze your sheep in the neighbour's garden!).


Edit to add...

anathematician said:
 My solicitor has not been sent the actual lease.

Just to avoid any future confusion and panic, when you get a copy of the lease...

The lease will not show the name of the current owners of the leasehold... it will show the names of a "Victorian Land Owner" and the "Victorian chap", who were parties to the original lease in 1899.

anathematician

eddddy said:

Have you also downloaded the Title Register for the freehold? Hopefully, you will find that both vendors (or maybe just one of them) own that as well. If so, the titles can be merged. 

As far as I know, this is the Title Register for the freehold! I searched for the property on the Land Registry website and it returns this Title Register, a Title Plan (which I also downloaded) and a Flood Risk Indicator (which I didn't bother with). The property information on the Land Registry website lists the tenure as freehold.

Thank you for your help with this. It's very much appreciated.

greatcrested

Just to be clear- the Title Absolute that you have downloaded and quoted above is... the leasehold title yes?

If yes, then you're fine - you are buying the lease from the current registered owners, vendor 1 and vendor 2.

But I'd also downlod the freehold title and see if they also own that - in which case you can/should buy both,and as suggested above, merge them

However, if the title above is the Freehold Title, and there is no registered leasehold title at the Land Registry - that is the more worrying scenario that we have been commenting on earlier.

In that case, you buy the freehold from V1 & V2, but at some future point the heir of the heir of the original leaseholder could produce documents proving ownership of the lease.

Yes - you can get indemnity insurance. But you need to understand what you are insuring against. You probably get financial help to query/fight this person's claim. If you lose, you probably get financial compensaton for any loss you incur. What you do not get is a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card - if the heir's claim is proved, he will be able to evict you, no insurance will over-ride his legal right. So you'll lose the property and have to move. It's just that you'll get a load of ££ to help with that.

AdrianC

anathematician said:

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?

Kick you out?
No.

Charge you ground rent?
Only insofar as it's in the lease. And only up to six years back-payment.

greatcrested

AdrianC said:

anathematician said:

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?

Kick you out?
No.

Charge you ground rent?
Only insofar as it's in the lease. And only up to six years back-payment.

Other way round surely. If OP buys the freehold and an unknow leaseholder shows up, OP could charge the leaeholder ground rent (nsofar as it's in the lease).

And yes, the leaseholder could kick OP/ freeholder out and occupy the property for the remaining length of the lease.

Or have I missed something and it is definately the lease that OP is buying?

AdrianC

greatcrested said:

AdrianC said:

anathematician said:

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?

Kick you out?
No.

Charge you ground rent?
Only insofar as it's in the lease. And only up to six years back-payment.

Other way round surely. If OP buys the freehold and an unknow leaseholder shows up, OP could charge the leaeholder ground rent (nsofar as it's in the lease).

And yes, the leaseholder could kick OP/ freeholder out and occupy the property for the remaining length of the lease.

Or have I missed something and it is definately the lease that OP is buying?

Ah! Good point, I hadn't thought that way round...

anathematician

greatcrested said:

AdrianC said:

anathematician said:

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?

Kick you out?
No.

Charge you ground rent?
Only insofar as it's in the lease. And only up to six years back-payment.

Other way round surely. If OP buys the freehold and an unknow leaseholder shows up, OP could charge the leaeholder ground rent (nsofar as it's in the lease).

And yes, the leaseholder could kick OP/ freeholder out and occupy the property for the remaining length of the lease.

Or have I missed something and it is definately the lease that OP is buying?

That is worrying. The title I downloaded from the Land Registry is the freehold title. So it seems there is a mystery leaseholder out there, somewhere.