Advice on speeding up purchase

leypt1

Slithery said:

leypt1 said:
Thanks for your reply. Our solicitor has said that the "no pets" actually means no annoying pets, and that it would need to be enforced in court, so we're feeling a bit more relaxed about it. Obviously not as relaxed as if the clause wasn't there at all!

Please quote exactly the relevant clause in the lease.

"no bird dog or other animal which may cause annoyance to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the adjoining premises shall be kept in the lower maisonette"

If we can't take our solicitor's advice on this then I feel like we have bigger problems TBH

eddddy

leypt1 said:

The freeholder is a big issue, especially because he lives upstairs. We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist
- the freeholder is new, so might have a different interpretation to the previous freeholder
- we still want to actually hear directly from the freeholder, since we'll be forced to live with him for several years

That lease arrangement for repairs seems to come up fairly frequently for maisonettes with no communal areas. In those cases, leases tend to say that each maisonette owner is responsible for insuring their own part of the building. It's a bit worrying that your solicitor hasn't come across that type of arrangement before.

A new freeholder shouldn't make any difference. It's the lease that specifies repair responsibilities, service charge arrangements, insurance arrangements etc. The freeholder cannot override them.

If the freeholder is saying things that contradict the lease, it's the lease that's right and the freeholder that's wrong.

In this kind of situation, the freeholder has no responsibilities for the managing the building, so there is almost no questions that they can answer in the LPE1.

Slithery

So it doesn't say no annoying pets. It says any pets which may be annoying.

Annoying isn't a definitive term, a neighbour could say that your pet is annoying them for any reason whether valid or not.

Do not go ahead until you have permission for the pet from the freeholder. You should read the problems that another poster has experienced trying to get permission....

Help with cat in leasehold flat - Director with passive/aggressive behaviour

NameUnavailable

leypt1 said:

We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist

Are we blowing it out of proportion?

Not having a regular service charge is not unusual, I would be concerned why your solicitor thinks its a problem (i.e. concerned about their competence, unless there's more to it). What does the lease actually say?

No, you're not blowing anything out of proportion. The lease is what you are actually buying, that bundle of A4 paper is what you will own, and what you must adhere to, so the contents of it are vitally important.

A difficult freeholder is a nightmare you really don't want to get into (I know from experience). I would go and knock on their door to speak to them directly at this stage to discuss your concerns (wear a face mask). I would absolutely want to know what sort of person I'm getting involved with.

leypt1

eddddy said:

leypt1 said:

The freeholder is a big issue, especially because he lives upstairs. We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist
- the freeholder is new, so might have a different interpretation to the previous freeholder
- we still want to actually hear directly from the freeholder, since we'll be forced to live with him for several years

That lease arrangement for repairs seems to come up fairly frequently for maisonettes with no communal areas. In those cases, leases tend to say that each maisonette owner is responsible for insuring their own part of the building. It's a bit worrying that your solicitor hasn't come across that type of arrangement before.

A new freeholder shouldn't make any difference. It's the lease that specifies repair responsibilities, service charge arrangements, insurance arrangements etc. The freeholder cannot override them.

If the freeholder is saying things that contradict the lease, it's the lease that's right and the freeholder that's wrong.

In this kind of situation, the freeholder has no responsibilities for the managing the building, so there is almost no questions that they can answer in the LPE1.

Thanks, that's interesting. He's from Leamington! Who knows what it's like up there.

The lease does say that the landlord is obliged to maintain building insurance and we're obliged to contribute towards its cost.

Interesting re. the LPE1 - so why would the freeholder state that the service charge varies? This is what our solicitor is trying to understand. 

I think we're keen to make sure that we're on the same page as the freeholder, even though we're protected by the lease, because we need to know that it won't be difficult to communicate with him, and that there won't be arguments over our responsibilities.

leypt1

Slithery said:

So it doesn't say no annoying pets. It says any pets which may be annoying.

Annoying isn't a definitive term, a neighbour could say that your pet is annoying them for any reason whether valid or not.

Do not go ahead until you have permission for the pet from the freeholder. You should read the problems that another poster has experienced trying to get permission....

Help with cat in leasehold flat - Director with passive/aggressive behaviour

Thank you. We did initially suggest this, but our solicitor said that it would be difficult/impractical for the freeholder to give permission in advance for a pet which hasn't had a chance to be annoying yet.

I think we'll try again, just for safety.

leypt1

NameUnavailable said:

leypt1 said:

We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist

Are we blowing it out of proportion?

Not having a regular service charge is not unusual, I would be concerned why your solicitor thinks its a problem (i.e. concerned about their competence, unless there's more to it). What does the lease actually say?

No, you're not blowing anything out of proportion. The lease is what you are actually buying, that bundle of A4 paper is what you will own, and what you must adhere to, so the contents of it are vitally important.

A difficult freeholder is a nightmare you really don't want to get into (I know from experience). I would go and knock on their door to speak to them directly at this stage to discuss your concerns (wear a face mask). I would absolutely want to know what sort of person I'm getting involved with.

Thanks for your response. The issue is that the freeholder (via the LPE1) and our solicitor thinks that the service charge "varies". The seller and the lease say there's no service charge - the seller has only paid for building insurance since 2012. They also pay for the works they choose to carry out on the lower half of the building, but not for anything carried out upstairs.

There are a few variations on the lease. The first lease says:

`The tenant hereby covenants with the landlord as follows:
...c) To keep the lower maisonette and every part thereof in good and substantial repair throughout the term hereby granted and it is hereby declared and agreed that there is included in this covenant as repairable by the tenant (including replacement whenever shall be necessary) the ceilings and floors of and in the said maisonette and the joists and beams on which the said floors are laid and there are also included in this covenant the windows of the said maisonette provided that the ceiling joists are not included in the covenant and are the responsibility of the owner or occupier of the upper maisonette (and then something about painting the external surfaces every 3 years)
d) to sweep and thoroughly cleanse the chimneys...
e) to keep in repair and replace when necessary all cisterns pipes...in so far as such things are installed and used only for the purposes of the said maisonette
f) to permit the landlord and her duly authorised agents...twice a year...to enter upon and examine the condition of the lower maisonette and thereupon the landlord may serve upon the tenant notice in writing specifying any repairs necessary to be done and require the tenant forthwith to execute the same
...13) to pay on demand a yearly sum equal to the sum which the landlord shall pay by way of premium for keeping the demised premises insured against loss or damage by fire 

It doesn't say anything specifically about paying a service charge - just states our flat's repair obligations.

The first variation says:
"in pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of the premises the freeholders for themselves and their successors in title and assigns hereby covenant with the lessee and her successors in title at the request and cost of the lessee should occasion so require and on receiving security for its costs to enforce all the covenants in the lease of the upper maisonette being the subject of the liability of the lease for repairs in respect of the building of which the said premises form part including the roof all party walls and party structures and in respect of the insurance of the upper maisonette of the building for its full rebuilding value"

eddddy

leypt1 said:

eddddy said:

leypt1 said:

The freeholder is a big issue, especially because he lives upstairs. We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist
- the freeholder is new, so might have a different interpretation to the previous freeholder
- we still want to actually hear directly from the freeholder, since we'll be forced to live with him for several years

That lease arrangement for repairs seems to come up fairly frequently for maisonettes with no communal areas. In those cases, leases tend to say that each maisonette owner is responsible for insuring their own part of the building. It's a bit worrying that your solicitor hasn't come across that type of arrangement before.

A new freeholder shouldn't make any difference. It's the lease that specifies repair responsibilities, service charge arrangements, insurance arrangements etc. The freeholder cannot override them.

If the freeholder is saying things that contradict the lease, it's the lease that's right and the freeholder that's wrong.

In this kind of situation, the freeholder has no responsibilities for the managing the building, so there is almost no questions that they can answer in the LPE1.

Thanks, that's interesting. He's from Leamington! Who knows what it's like up there.

The lease does say that the landlord is obliged to maintain building insurance and we're obliged to contribute towards its cost.

Interesting re. the LPE1 - so why would the freeholder state that the service charge varies? This is what our solicitor is trying to understand. 

I think we're keen to make sure that we're on the same page as the freeholder, even though we're protected by the lease, because we need to know that it won't be difficult to communicate with him, and that there won't be arguments over our responsibilities.

OK - so in legal terms - you pay the freeholder a service charge. That service charge comprises of your share of the buildings insurance premium.

The buildings insurance premium changes each year (probably goes up) - so the service charge varies.

Also, bear in mind that the freeholder might just be 'an average Joe' who bought a flat to live in - that came with a freehold. His/her only responsibility as freeholder to to buy the right buildings insurance. And he/she has been asked to fill in an LPE1 form which is 90% irrelevant.

TBH, I think I would have expected your solicitor to explain to you that the LPE1 is 90% irrelevant in these circumstances, so not to worry about most/all of the gaps.

But maybe your solicitor has spotted something more specific that's worrying him/her.

davidmcn

Slithery said:

So it doesn't say no annoying pets. It says any pets which may be annoying.

Annoying isn't a definitive term, a neighbour could say that your pet is annoying them for any reason whether valid or not.

It would be interpreted objectively, like any other sort of nuisance, somebody merely saying that "I find chihuahuas annoying" isn't going to cut it.

And obviously if your pet is causing an actual nuisance, your neighbours will have remedies no matter what your titles say.

leypt1

eddddy said:

leypt1 said:

eddddy said:

leypt1 said:

The freeholder is a big issue, especially because he lives upstairs. We've been told that the lease splits repair responsibilities between upstairs and downstairs, rather than having all leaseholder collectively responsible for all repairs. This means no service charge apart from what we pay for repairs to the downstairs, but:
- our solicitor doesn t seem to believe this arrangement can actually exist
- the freeholder is new, so might have a different interpretation to the previous freeholder
- we still want to actually hear directly from the freeholder, since we'll be forced to live with him for several years

That lease arrangement for repairs seems to come up fairly frequently for maisonettes with no communal areas. In those cases, leases tend to say that each maisonette owner is responsible for insuring their own part of the building. It's a bit worrying that your solicitor hasn't come across that type of arrangement before.

A new freeholder shouldn't make any difference. It's the lease that specifies repair responsibilities, service charge arrangements, insurance arrangements etc. The freeholder cannot override them.

If the freeholder is saying things that contradict the lease, it's the lease that's right and the freeholder that's wrong.

In this kind of situation, the freeholder has no responsibilities for the managing the building, so there is almost no questions that they can answer in the LPE1.

Thanks, that's interesting. He's from Leamington! Who knows what it's like up there.

The lease does say that the landlord is obliged to maintain building insurance and we're obliged to contribute towards its cost.

Interesting re. the LPE1 - so why would the freeholder state that the service charge varies? This is what our solicitor is trying to understand. 

I think we're keen to make sure that we're on the same page as the freeholder, even though we're protected by the lease, because we need to know that it won't be difficult to communicate with him, and that there won't be arguments over our responsibilities.

OK - so in legal terms - you pay the freeholder a service charge. That service charge comprises of your share of the buildings insurance premium.

The buildings insurance premium changes each year (probably goes up) - so the service charge varies.

Also, bear in mind that the freeholder might just be 'an average Joe' who bought a flat to live in - that came with a freehold. His/her only responsibility as freeholder to to buy the right buildings insurance. And he/she has been asked to fill in an LPE1 form which is 90% irrelevant.

TBH, I think I would have expected your solicitor to explain to you that the LPE1 is 90% irrelevant in these circumstances, so not to worry about most/all of the gaps.

But maybe your solicitor has spotted something more specific that's worrying him/her.

Thank you - that would make sense! I've also copied out the relevant parts of my lease above if that sheds any more light on things.

The LPE1 mentions "essential" documents which much be included - insurance invoices for previous years, etc. The freeholder has marked all of these as "no follow", but...nothing yet. The seller has said they typically pay £360 over the year but this is the closest we've come to getting an actual estimate of our liabilities.