Flat owner responsible for building insurance for maisonette flat - normal or not?

Neil49

greatcrested said:

lpegden said:

eddddy said:

lpegden said:

NameUnavailable said:

Who is the freeholder and why aren't they arranging the insurance of their property?

I'm not sure, a woman... apparently she has a few properties with the same arrangement. There's no ground rent and I would 'own' the bricks/ foundation of the flat and therefore responsible for any work. Basically she wants nothing to do with the property.

It's a bit misleading to say "she wants nothing to do with the property".

It might be more accurate to say "the leases don't allow her [the freeholder] to have anything with the property, even if she wanted to".

One option to consider is that you and your future neighbour could get together and buy the freehold, and then manage the building and insurance in whatever way you choose.

(But there seem to be an increasing number of posts about problems with "shared freeholds" - essentially where one of the joint-freeholders won't cooperate.)

Well... I have been a bit misleading actually (was trying to simplify things!) because actually the lease currently states it's her responsibility to insure the building. She hasn't been, it been the two flat owners. We've asked her to, she refuses, so yeah we'd have to get a deed of variation. So yeah, she's very much choosing not to have anything to do with the property...

No - not 'a bit misleading'.

You have been very misleading by omitting this critical infomation! It changs everything.

The insurance is not the responsibility of the flat owners (leaseholders), and the whole issue of whether it is common for them todo this seperately is irrelevant.

There are legal mechanisms for forcing a freeholder to comply with their legal obligations.

There is also the option for the two leaseholders toapply for RTM.

I agree.

Now is the time to get this sorted out officially once and for all. 

lpegden

Oh dear! Sorry for being misleading! Not my intention.
So would you crack on and buy it or stay well clear? I can see it's not an ideal situation, but I suppose I'm beginning to see (I'm a FTB) that nothing is remotely ideal when buying a property (I was up until about 2am reading these threads!). And would I just find another problem elsewhere.

lpegden

greatcrested said:

lpegden said:

eddddy said:

lpegden said:

NameUnavailable said:

Who is the freeholder and why aren't they arranging the insurance of their property?

I'm not sure, a woman... apparently she has a few properties with the same arrangement. There's no ground rent and I would 'own' the bricks/ foundation of the flat and therefore responsible for any work. Basically she wants nothing to do with the property.

It's a bit misleading to say "she wants nothing to do with the property".

It might be more accurate to say "the leases don't allow her [the freeholder] to have anything with the property, even if she wanted to".

One option to consider is that you and your future neighbour could get together and buy the freehold, and then manage the building and insurance in whatever way you choose.

(But there seem to be an increasing number of posts about problems with "shared freeholds" - essentially where one of the joint-freeholders won't cooperate.)

Well... I have been a bit misleading actually (was trying to simplify things!) because actually the lease currently states it's her responsibility to insure the building. She hasn't been, it been the two flat owners. We've asked her to, she refuses, so yeah we'd have to get a deed of variation. So yeah, she's very much choosing not to have anything to do with the property...

No - not 'a bit misleading'.

You have been very misleading by omitting this critical infomation! It changs everything.

The insurance is not the responsibility of the flat owners (leaseholders), and the whole issue of whether it is common for them todo this seperately is irrelevant.

There are legal mechanisms for forcing a freeholder to comply with their legal obligations.

There is also the option for the two leaseholders to apply for RTM.

I'm not sure I understand.

Currently the lease I'd be buying states its the landlords responsibility to insure, yes.

However, the other flat owner's lease states it's his responsibility. The two leases are inconsistent. 

We have tried to get the landlord to insure the building in line with 'my' lease, and change the lease of the other flat. But she has no interest in doing so - she gets no ground rent and as I said, doesn't want to get involved. She is in breach of one of her leases, yes. However, I don't feel comfortable (nor could I afford) to buy a property on the basis that I take out legal action against her to make her fulfill her obligations.

My choice is either to pull out, or amend 'my' lease so that its my responsibility to insure, and get out contingent building insurance.

eddddy

lpegden said:

Currently the lease I'd be buying states its the landlords responsibility to insure, yes.

However, the other flat owner's lease states it's his responsibility. The two leases are inconsistent. 

It sounds incredibly unlikely that the freeholder made such a fundamental mistake when the leases were granted - and that it hasn't been corrected.  My bet would be that somebody is fibbing to you.

But if that really is the case, that sounds like grounds for applying to a Tribunal for a compulsory lease variation (under Section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987):

35Application by party to lease for variation of lease.

(1)Any party to a long lease of a flat may make an application to [the appropriate tribunal] for an order varying the lease in such manner as is specified in the application.

(2)The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely—

.....
[(b)the insurance of the building containing the flat or of any such land or building as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(iii)

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/35

So one of the leaseholders should have done that.

lpegden

eddddy said:

lpegden said:

Currently the lease I'd be buying states its the landlords responsibility to insure, yes.

However, the other flat owner's lease states it's his responsibility. The two leases are inconsistent. 

It sounds incredibly unlikely that the freeholder made such a fundamental mistake when the leases were granted - and that it hasn't been corrected.  My bet would be that somebody is fibbing to you.

But if that really is the case, that sounds like grounds for applying to a Tribunal for a compulsory lease variation (under Section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987):

35Application by party to lease for variation of lease.

(1)Any party to a long lease of a flat may make an application to [the appropriate tribunal] for an order varying the lease in such manner as is specified in the application.

(2)The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely—

.....
[(b)the insurance of the building containing the flat or of any such land or building as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(iii)

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/35

So one of the leaseholders should have done that.

It is the case unfortunately. My solicitor has seen both leases as have I. You're right, they could/ should have, but I'm not sure they've minded. My vendor seems very surprised by how problematic my solicitor had found it. 
Would you just stay clear?

greatcrested

Drip drip drip....!

In my opinion y have two options:

1) insist that the seller gets the matter of the lease contradictions resolved, and the insurance sorted, before you will Exchage contracts. This will at best involve considerable delay, and at worst prove impossible if the freeholder does not cooperate.

2) find another property.

There's no way I'd purchase with this matter ongoing and likely to prove difficult, if not impossible, to resolve, not to mention stressful and costly

lpegden

greatcrested said:

Drip drip drip....!

In my opinion y have two options:

1) insist that the seller gets the matter of the lease contradictions resolved, and the insurance sorted, before you will Exchage contracts. This will at best involve considerable delay, and at worst prove impossible if the freeholder does not cooperate.

2) find another property.

There's no way I'd purchase with this matter ongoing and likely to prove difficult, if not impossible, to resolve, not to mention stressful and costly

Thank you. The seller has agreed to sort this, albeit very begrudgingly. They initially said I would need to cover the landlord's legal costs if I wanted the deed of variation, which seemed quite unbelievable. You're right though, it could become very costly/ lengthy which is another reason I'm hesitant. Very very frustrating.

eddddy

lpegden said:
Thank you. The seller has agreed to sort this, albeit very begrudgingly. They initially said I would need to cover the landlord's legal costs if I wanted the deed of variation, which seemed quite unbelievable. You're right though, it could become very costly/ lengthy which is another reason I'm hesitant. Very very frustrating.

It really has taken a long time for you to drip feed all the details!

As above, I would agree that you shouldn't buy the flat whilst the leases are defective - unless your strategy is to buy cheap, go to tribunal to get the lease sorted... and end up with a good lease and make a 'profit'.  (But you'd need specialist legal advice on the likely outcome of a tribunal hearing. And it would take months to get this sorted via a tribunal.)


Alternatively, If the seller and the freeholder are motivated to get this sorted before the sale, and everyone can agree on the terms of the lease variation - I guess that could be achieved in a few weeks.

But you suggested that the freeholder is disinterested - so it might be impossible to persuade her to get on with it.