Loft extension and roof maintenance responsibility

Doozergirl

FataVerde said:

eddddy said:

Why has the question about airspace arisen? Has somebody involved with the property suggested that it's an issue?


To be honest, it's the kind of argument that can end up in court - with lawyers analysing the precise wording of the lease.  But in cases where the roof is demised to the leaseholder, it seems that courts usually agree that the airspace is demised as well (which is what you want).

Here are some example court cases:

The first category of case is where a lease of premises, such as a flat or individual unit, is comprised within a larger building. In broad terms, in such cases, a lease of the top floor of a building which includes the roof may well carry with it the airspace over the building, thereby entitling the tenant to enlarge the premises into the airspace: Davies v Yadegar [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 71

Haines v Florensa [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 73. As Woolf LJ said in Davies v Yadegar at 235, where the roof and roof space have been demised the “logical intent” would be that the airspace above was included 

Taken from: https://www.falcon-chambers.com/images/uploads/articles/Ups_and_Downs_of_Demises_Article_BignellJ_final_LT_Review.pdf

But obviously, the simplest solution is if you can get the joint freeholder to sign a consent document, without having to resort to everyone taking legal advice and potentially going to court. (You could even consider paying the joint freeholder a 'sweetener' in return for agreeing - because of all the potential legal costs that would be saved.)

Very good point. My solicitor mentioned airspace in his comment, but the term does not appear in the lease or any other document. With both my solicitor and the leasehold advisory confirming I own the loftspace and roof, I'm fairly certain it's a strong starting point. I had a chat with the co-freeholder, who seemed to agree I own the loft (she mentioned the current vendors were considering extending so she knows it's demised to me). She only mentioned the maintenance for the roof would then revert to me. I don't plan to do the conversion for a long while. I was just wondering if those with share of freeholds had any similar experience with roof maintenance responsibility. I should have left question 1 out.

I would be in agreement with eddddy that the roof isn't a 'shared house structure' if it's demised to you.  

Fact is, if you're changing the roof in order to convert the loft, there shouldn't be a lot of maintenance needed for a very long time indeed. 

Anything needed  in the short to medium term is likely to be a workmanship issue.  

FataVerde

Doozergirl said:

FataVerde said:

eddddy said:

Why has the question about airspace arisen? Has somebody involved with the property suggested that it's an issue?


To be honest, it's the kind of argument that can end up in court - with lawyers analysing the precise wording of the lease.  But in cases where the roof is demised to the leaseholder, it seems that courts usually agree that the airspace is demised as well (which is what you want).

Here are some example court cases:

The first category of case is where a lease of premises, such as a flat or individual unit, is comprised within a larger building. In broad terms, in such cases, a lease of the top floor of a building which includes the roof may well carry with it the airspace over the building, thereby entitling the tenant to enlarge the premises into the airspace: Davies v Yadegar [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 71

Haines v Florensa [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 73. As Woolf LJ said in Davies v Yadegar at 235, where the roof and roof space have been demised the “logical intent” would be that the airspace above was included 

Taken from: https://www.falcon-chambers.com/images/uploads/articles/Ups_and_Downs_of_Demises_Article_BignellJ_final_LT_Review.pdf

But obviously, the simplest solution is if you can get the joint freeholder to sign a consent document, without having to resort to everyone taking legal advice and potentially going to court. (You could even consider paying the joint freeholder a 'sweetener' in return for agreeing - because of all the potential legal costs that would be saved.)

Very good point. My solicitor mentioned airspace in his comment, but the term does not appear in the lease or any other document. With both my solicitor and the leasehold advisory confirming I own the loftspace and roof, I'm fairly certain it's a strong starting point. I had a chat with the co-freeholder, who seemed to agree I own the loft (she mentioned the current vendors were considering extending so she knows it's demised to me). She only mentioned the maintenance for the roof would then revert to me. I don't plan to do the conversion for a long while. I was just wondering if those with share of freeholds had any similar experience with roof maintenance responsibility. I should have left question 1 out.

I would be in agreement with eddddy that the roof isn't a 'shared house structure' if it's demised to you.  

Fact is, if you're changing the roof in order to convert the loft, there shouldn't be a lot of maintenance needed for a very long time indeed. 

Anything needed  in the short to medium term is likely to be a workmanship issue.  

It's interesting that in this neighbourhood most people share the costs for the roof for this particular type of flat. My neighbour suggested it before I even asked about it. I had a chat with a friend who bought in the same neighbourhood and she has the same arrangement. I had the lease inspected by both my solicitor and the lease advisory. I think they look at various clauses and they suggested the intention was to share structural costs. I would similarly be responsible for foundation issues even if those are demised to my neighbour mostly.

eddddy

FataVerde said:

It's interesting that in this neighbourhood most people share the costs for the roof for this particular type of flat. My neighbour suggested it before I even asked about it. I had a chat with a friend who bought in the same neighbourhood and she has the same arrangement. I had the lease inspected by both my solicitor and the lease advisory. I think they look at various clauses and they suggested the intention was to share structural costs. I would similarly be responsible for foundation issues even if those are demised to my neighbour mostly.

You need to be much more precise about what your lease says. The lease should be very clear.

For example, does it say that the loft and roof are demised to you, but you can recover 50% of the maintenance and repair costs from your neighbour?


It doesn't really matter what other people in the neighbourhood do.  The lease specifies your legal responsibilities.  The other people in the neighbourhood don't specify your legal responsibilities.

And when you use phrases like "shared house structures", you need to explain what you mean. Did you make up the phrase "shared house structures"? Or is it a phrase taken from your lease?