Removal of access to the drive & garage of my house

Hundall

Hi,

The garage of my house is leasehold (999 year lease), with the freehold owned by the flat above the garage. There are 2 other garages under the flat, 1 belonging to the flat & the other to my neighbour.

i’ve lived in the property since it was built in 2004 & have never had any contact with the owners of the flat which has always been rented out. I have never paid any contribution to the buildings insurance of the garage. The deeds state that it is the responsibility of the flat owner to ensure the building (flat & garages) has insurance & they are entitled to ask for a contribution to this cost, split in proportion to square footage of the garage as proportion of building.

The flat came into the market about 1 month ago & within the last week became ‘Sold STC’.  The seller has owned the flat since 2004.  Yesterday I received a letter from the owner of the flat stating that ‘I am in breach of the lease as I’ve not paid any monies due for the contribution to insurance since the beginning of the lease. And that I risk forfeiting the lease if I don’t respond immediately & that this would mean that I no longer have access to the garage or drive’. The drive is in front of the garage & I own the freehold of the drive.

I’m looking for advice on how I should respond. I don’t know exactly what they want but I assume it’s likely to be a contribution to insurance going back to 2004. I’m happy to make a contribution going forward. But should I pay going back to 2004, or later? I feel uneasy about making any payment without seeing any proof of what I’m paying for or whether I need to.

Really appreciate advice on where I stand legally as not knowing is very stressful.

Many Thanks 

user1977

Hundall said:

I don’t know exactly what they want but I assume it’s likely to be a contribution to insurance going back to 2004. 

Well, if they've never asked you for a contribution, and still haven't told you how much you're meant to be paying, I'm not sure how they expect you to settle your debt! "How much do you want" is surely the first question?

theoretica

I would probably leap to conclusions and ask the owner of the flat what their buyer was playing at.

Hundall

thanks.  I just want a better understanding of where I stand before I respond, or even whether I should respond at all.

though i agree understanding exactly what they want from me is probably a good place to start....

thegreenone

If I'm reading this correctly.......  should your garage be forfeited, as you own the Freehold to the drive, you could use your drive, park in front of the garage and render it useless?

It sounds as though the Seller's solicitor has just woken Seller up to this fact and he/she now needs to make amends for the sale to happen.

I think I would write back asking them for proof of invoicing you over the last 18 years.

powerful_Rogue

Worst case I would believe they can only claim for the past six years due to the statute of limitations. Well, they can ask for 18 years, but legally would only be able to enforce six years.

Flugelhorn

thegreenone said:

If I'm reading this correctly.......  should your garage be forfeited, as you own the Freehold to the drive, you could use your drive, park in front of the garage and render it useless?

It sounds as though the Seller's solicitor has just woken Seller up to this fact and he/she now needs to make amends for the sale to happen.

I think I would write back asking them for proof of invoicing you over the last 18 years.

exactly this ^ - the garage becomes useless without the drive, ask for copies of the invoices

Section62

Flugelhorn said:

thegreenone said:

If I'm reading this correctly.......  should your garage be forfeited, as you own the Freehold to the drive, you could use your drive, park in front of the garage and render it useless?

It sounds as though the Seller's solicitor has just woken Seller up to this fact and he/she now needs to make amends for the sale to happen.

I think I would write back asking them for proof of invoicing you over the last 18 years.

exactly this ^ - the garage becomes useless without the drive, ask for copies of the invoices

Not entirely, the garage could potentially be converted to a store room or additional (living) space - with access either from the adjoining garage(s), or from the flat above. (Possibly from a garden too?)

On the other hand, if the planning consent for the OP's property required the provision of two parking spaces then the loss of one may put them in breach of that consent.

Time to have a sensible discussion with the flat owner to find out what is required to put matters back in order.

diego_94

There was a thread about something along these lines, but from the leasholders point of view.....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6306980/freehold-house-with-leasehold-garage-insurance/p1

Hundall

Hi,

Thank you all for your earlier replies, much appreciated.  Here's a quick update on where this is....

So the owner of the flat has asked for £456, which is a 13.3% share of the total cost (£3428) of insurance since 2004.  The 13.3% share is specified in the leasehold agreement.  I've asked for proof of buildings insurance and been sent a spreadsheet with a number against each year going back to 2014 (I'm being asked for a contribution going back to 2004).  I've been sent bank account details to transfer the money to the flat owner.

From what has been posted, I think there's a limitation period meaning this back payment can only go so many years - though i think this is 12 years rather than 6 years (as posted above)?

I'd like to see something more concrete to prove that the insurance has been taken out and the cost of this - is this reasonable?  And what if they say they haven't kept this documentation?

Transferring the money directly to the flat owner seems very very dodgy.  I don't even know for sure that they are who they say they are.  If i do make a payment, how should this be done?  And what should i ask for in return as proof of payment?

Thanks again for your advice.

user1977

Hundall said:

Transferring the money directly to the flat owner seems very very dodgy. 

Why? If they're the freeholder then surely it would be dodgier to give it to somebody else!