We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Land Registry shows x3 entries
arrtu
Posts: 19 Forumite
Hello looking at buying a flat that’s lease hold (2flats in block), on the land registry page when I go to buy info gives me x3 choices
1,leasehold
2, freehold
3, leasehold
Now I presume the freehold is details of the freeholder .
but which leasehold to I buy and why is there x2
Any help appreciated
TIA
1,leasehold
2, freehold
3, leasehold
Now I presume the freehold is details of the freeholder .
but which leasehold to I buy and why is there x2
Any help appreciated
TIA
0
Comments
-
Could be a head lease and a sublease. Unless you're looking at the leases for each of the two flats?
0 -
Correct likely a head lease and a sublease. Would suggest first buying the leasehold title document on Land Registry that does not have the wording "See important note" next to it, as this is usually the leasehold title for the flat you are looking to acquire. The leasehold with "See important note" is likely to be the head lease which is common to the other flat in the block. Hope the description makes sense!
0 -
Hi I have all 3 but no idea what they mean
1says20.06.1988) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 23 December 1985 Term : 99 years from 24 June 1985 Rent : £50 rising to £400 Parties : (1) ANOTHER Estates Limited (2) MR AND MRS ANOTHER
2nd one says
(04.06.2014) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 3 June 2014 Term : From and including 24 June 2084 to and including 23 June 3083 Parties : (1) Management Company Limited (2) Another NOTE: The lease dated 23 December 1985 referred to in the above lease is registered under title number ONXXXXX. (04.06.2014) The Lease prohibits or restricts alienation. (04.06.2014) The landlord's title is registered.0 -
So it's effectively the same lease, I guess - at the stroke of midnight at the end of 23 June 2084, the first lease ends and the second one begins.arrtu said:1says20.06.1988) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 23 December 1985 Term : 99 years from 24 June 1985
2nd one says
(04.06.2014) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 3 June 2014 Term : From and including 24 June 2084 to and including 23 June 3083
0 -
You would think so but then the sellers solicitor keeeps coming back with there is no extention !davidmcn said:
So it's effectively the same lease, I guess - at the stroke of midnight at the end of 23 June 2084, the first lease ends and the second one begins.arrtu said:1says20.06.1988) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 23 December 1985 Term : 99 years from 24 June 1985
2nd one says
(04.06.2014) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 3 June 2014 Term : From and including 24 June 2084 to and including 23 June 3083
0 -
I really need someone to read both and tell me but even the land registry are being vague
0 -
Because they say when they do the check they can only see the 1st one ie-99yrs , so they then asked the Vendors soliceters and they came back with 99 years also , BUT i go on land registry i can see 2 ! , Im presuming the mortagage company can see 2davidmcn said:
Why isn't your solicitor doing so?arrtu said:I really need someone to read both and tell me
and thats why the approved the mortgage as they wont approve a mortgage under 70years !
And to be honest i dont want to let the property go for the sake of someone a mistake .
Why are Estate agent and mortgage saying 999 years and the land reg saying from what i can make out a total of 999 years but the 2 soliceters cant see it .?0 -
Ask them what they think about the second lease then.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards