Unusual discrepancy over roof in title deeds - anyone have experience of this?

Hhp321

Hey!
I've had a search but can't find anyone who has been in a similar situation before.

We are in the final stages of buying a property. It's  a top floor flat in a relatively old building. Our solicitor has noticed an anomaly in the title deeds involving roof responsibility. One of the attached neighbours is a house, some of  their house is in the building of our flat comprising some of the bottom floor. This makes them partly responsible for roof costs of the property we are buying alongside the other ground floor neighbour, with ourselves paying the biggest share which seems reasonable enough. 

Where the problem arises is, the title deeds of the property we want to buy also reads like we are responsible for a share of the attached houses roof costs.  We don't share any of this property and none of our rooms come under their roof. Our solicitor has advised this is highly unusual as we would in effect be partly responsible for roof costs of a property we don't live in. He has advised he wouldn't buy the property if it turns out this is the case. He is in the process of acquiring the deeds of the neighbour in questions property which is taking a bit of time as it comes from an old register. He has advised that it is possible our deeds are poorly written and that their deeds might clear this discrepancy up. However, he has also added to prepare ourselves that it won't.  In this instance he believes the lender will no longer go ahead with the mortgage on the property.  

It's been a long stressful process for us to get to this stage and we were so close and now it feels like its likely to fall apart. Has anyone experienced anything similar to this or can offer advice? How did you proceed?

Our solicitor is absolutely doing his best and I know he is best placed to help us move forward, I am just hoping to gather similar experiences while we wait. 

Thanks for reading 

verytired11

Sorry to hear you are going through this.  It does sound like a strange situation and you may just have to wait until your solicitor has got the other deeds and made some enquiries before you know what the situation is. Have you asked the current owners what their perspective is - do they believe they are partially liable for upkeep of the neighbours roof?

eddddy

It's a bit difficult to imagine the set-up based on your post.

Are you saying that a 'house' and 2 flats make up a 'vertical section' of the building - maybe because it was originally one large house which is now split into 3 units?

If so, are the 'house' and 2 flats all leasehold? And are all 3 leasehold properties jointly responsible for maintaining the entire roof?  If so, that sounds normal.

Has the solicitor seen plans of the building - or at least photos?

How did the issue come up? Did the solicitor find a problem in the lease, or did you suggest to the solicitor that there might be a problem?

welshmoneylover

I would walk away unless he can clear up the situation for you; how stressful and disappointing it must be for you 

Hhp321

Thanks for the replies. 
We haven't asked the owner, we don't have any means of contacting her and thought it best to leave this to the people in the know. 

The building next to us adjoins at ground floor level and has a separate roof. It's quite hard to explain but I have popped in a photo (hopefully). Ours is the top floor flat and you can see the house to the left of it. Does this seem normal? Our solicitor is very experienced and I trust his judgement when he says its unusual but I did wonder if it was maybe something that was a bit more common than he thinks if that makes sense? Trying to work out just how much of a problem it would be. I am not sure about the leasehold if I'm totally honest. The property is in Scotland. My understanding was from speaking to the owner on viewings that the 3 of us shared responsibility for the roof, but only the one we lived under. All very confusing!

It was our solicitor who identified the issue in the deeds or we wouldn't have been any the wiser!  

user1977

Hhp321 said:

The property is in Scotland.

Always useful to highlight that in the first place, given the vast majority of people here aren't from Scotland and even fewer understand Scottish property law (hence the confused references to "leasehold", which is an English thing).

In any event, we'd need to see the deeds to offer any better opinion than your solicitor, it's certainly not a normal situation

Hhp321

user1977 said:

Hhp321 said:

The property is in Scotland.

Always useful to highlight that in the first place, given the vast majority of people here aren't from Scotland and even fewer understand Scottish property law (hence the confused references to "leasehold", which is an English thing).

In any event, we'd need to see the deeds to offer any better opinion than your solicitor, it's certainly not a normal situation

Thanks I'll remember that in future

RAS

Were the 2 storey building and the house originally one property? 

Hhp321

I suspect so yes, not certain. Is it common if it has been one property but isn't any longer that you pay a share of their roof despite not using it?

RAS

I don't the situation in Scotland. In England you sometimes get what are known as flying freeholds, where two or more properties have been carved from one and part of one property is above or below part of another property, rather than flats which are leasehold.

eddddy

Hhp321 said:

I suspect so yes, not certain. Is it common if it has been one property but isn't any longer that you pay a share of their roof despite not using it?

In Scotland - I have no idea.

But with leasehold property in England/Wales it's quite possible.

e.g. A large building is converted into flats and maisonettes etc (a maisonette meaning a dwelling on 2 floors).  The entire roof is the joint responsibility of all the property owners in the building. So if the roof above your property leaks, all the property owners have to contribute to the repair. The same if the roof above somebody else's property leaks.