Value of House owning 999 year lease of neighbouring properties

allroundgoodguy

We are in the process of selling my late mother's property (myself 2 brothers) a house with a shop. Whilst looking at the deeds (small mortgage paid off almost 30 years ago it states we have the 999 leasehold for several neighbouring properties -from around 1869. I know that the neighbouring two properties were sold last year (to a firm of solicitors who are doing it up as their office) as a lot (it's actually one and a half times size of ours and was used as a meeting room). The leasehold is not clear on our Land Registry entry but I can't seem to access the Land Registry for the two next door properties that sold. I know no money has been collected for many years, almost certainly not since my Mum had it in the 1980's. The Solicitors have expressed an interest in purchasing.
Would the fact we have a 999 year lease on their property mean we could  potentially reinstate any charges? Does us owning their leasehold add some value to our property particularly if they can tidy up the freehold and lesaehold arrangements? We've been told several thousand pounds value informally, but it may add a bit more of a premium they might pay.

We are in the process  of instructing a solicitor but I know the wider MSE audience can give a broader view.
If you need any more info, please say.

GDB2222

Do you mean that the neighbours have a sublease, and you have a 999 year head lease? You would need to know the terms of the sublease, but you might have some value there. 

user1977

What do the leases say? It wouldn't be normal for such ultra-long leases to have material covenants of value to the freeholder - though it is possible.

allroundgoodguy

Thanks. I can't find anything on the sub leases on Land Registry keeps coming up error. Nothing on ours , just the land area we "own" coloured differently and a line that the other is sibject to 999 year lease.

eddddy

So there are a group of properties - which you own. And some of the properties have been sold on long leases.

Firstly, do you own the freehold of the group of properties, or the leasehold?


Typically, the only income you would derive from the long leases is the annual ground rent. The leases would say how much this is - but if the leases were first created in 1869, it might be something like five shillings a year (or 25p).

Consequently, the freehold (or head lease) element of those properties is pretty-much worthless.



Unless maybe.... you say the 'meeting room' is being converted to a solicitor's office. Is any of the conversion work breaching the lease?

If, for example, the lease says it can only be used as a meeting room (and not as an office), you can charge the solicitor a premium for a lease variation to allow it to be used as an office.

But tbh, I would have thought a solicitor would have checked the lease for issues like that, before buying and converting. And taking a solicitor to court over an alleged breach of lease might be a bit daunting.


 

allroundgoodguy

eddddy said:

So there are a group of properties - which you own. And some of the properties have been sold on long leases.

Firstly, do you own the freehold of the group of properties, or the leasehold?


Typically, the only income you would derive from the long leases is the annual ground rent. The leases would say how much this is - but if the leases were first created in 1869, it might be something like five shillings a year (or 25p).

Consequently, the freehold (or head lease) element of those properties is pretty-much worthless.



Unless maybe.... you say the 'meeting room' is being converted to a solicitor's office. Is any of the conversion work breaching the lease?

If, for example, the lease says it can only be used as a meeting room (and not as an office), you can charge the solicitor a premium for a lease variation to allow it to be used as an office.

But tbh, I would have thought a solicitor would have checked the lease for issues like that, before buying and converting. And taking a solicitor to court over an alleged breach of lease might be a bit daunting.


 

Thanks, yes ours is the Freehold. The leasehold was set up in 1817.  I've managed to downlad the Land Registry now and it was sold to their SIPP pension operator part of a £75 billion finance company. It says no other particulars were provided at registration anyway. To all intents and purposes we don't seem to own the next door properties as it was sold last year. And yes, we wouldn't want the hassle of taking the solicitor (or their £75 billiion finance comapny!) to court either. It was more a goodwill negotiating position and a little bit of value. There was a shop sub-sub let, but that closed and forms part of the offices now.

There is a paragraph that states the title land was informally exonerated in 1901 from rent although on our Land Registry the sama para refers to a smaller car parks space we own at the end of our land so it is a tad confusing but I think it basically backs up entirely what you say. Obviosuly we'll get it checked out but it was just getting another view so thank you.