Absent freeholder

Robinette

I bought a leasehold property last year with a view to buying the freehold after two years. There is absolutely no problem with it being leasehold, as no ground rent is paid and there are over 900 years remaining, but I've started to investigate and the situation is intriguing me.

The freeholder passed away in 1945 but is still registered with HM Land Registry. I have obtained a copy of his will and his properties (he was a builder) are not mentioned. He had five sons, all of whom have also passed away.

He had a limited company, which he passed over to his sons before his death. This company was dissolved in the 1950s. Could the property have been an asset of the company, although wouldn't there have been a transfer document?

Any advice/ideas gratefully received. 

eddddy

Robinette said:

The freeholder passed away in 1945 but is still registered with HM Land Registry. I have obtained a copy of his will and his properties (he was a builder) are not mentioned. He had five sons, all of whom have also passed away.

Just to double check (because quite a few people make this mistake) - you've downloaded the freehold title that includes your property, and you're looking at the name of the proprietor/registered owner. 

And you're not looking at the name of the person who originally granted the lease.

The freehold title might relate to your entire street, or a group of streets (or, less likely, it might just relate to your house).



And you're not looking at the leasehold title of your house - as that would only tell you who the freeholder was when the lease was first granted. It wouldn't tell you the current owner of the freehold.

As I say, a few people who've posted make that mistake - so it's worth double checking.

Robinette

Hi eddddy, thanks for your reply. 

At the risk of sounding totally blonde, I'm looking at the official copy of the registered title. Section A is the property register, which includes the details of the lease under which the land is held, and section B is the proprietorship register, which shows the details of the people I bought the house from. Should I be looking at something else? 

user1977

Robinette said:

At the risk of sounding totally blonde, I'm looking at the official copy of the registered title. Section A is the property register, which includes the details of the lease under which the land is held, and section B is the proprietorship register, which shows the details of the people I bought the house from. Should I be looking at something else? 

So it's the registered leasehold title you're looking at. Or rather, the previous version of it, as I hope your purchase has since been registered? That doesn't tell you who the current freeholder is. The Lease is always referred to as the "Lease between Smith and Jones" or whoever the original parties were, even if Smith and Jones are no longer the freeholder and leaseholder.

Is there a registered title for the freehold?

Presumably your solicitor did investigate this at the time of your purchase (less blondely!), so what exactly were you told?

TripleH

Did you get any paperwork when you bought?

We have a new build that came with multiple deed transfers of land (I may not be using the correct term here).

Does companies house say how the company was dissolved?

Was there a change of directors soonish before it was dissolved?

The company might have been bought by another company who then transferred the assets to rhemselves before dissolving the original limited company.

Robinette

My purchase has been registered and the title is a good leasehold, which I believe means the freehold title is unregistered.

The only paperwork I have is the original lease document from 1938. None of the previous three owners had any contact with the freeholder, and the owners before that are deceased.

I haven't investigated the company yet, as I wanted to establish whether my house was a company asset. 

It's all very intriguing but perhaps I'll leave it for the next owner to untangle, should they so wish. 

eddddy

Robinette said:

Hi eddddy, thanks for your reply. 

At the risk of sounding totally blonde, I'm looking at the official copy of the registered title. Section A is the property register, which includes the details of the lease under which the land is held, and section B is the proprietorship register, which shows the details of the people I bought the house from. Should I be looking at something else? 

Yes - you should be looking at something else.

You're looking at the (old) leasehold title. You should be looking at the freehold title.

What you're seeing is the person who was the freeholder in 1945, when the lease was first granted. If you look at the freehold title, it should tell you who the current freeholder is.


You can get a copy of the freehold title for £3 from Land Registry...

• Click on this link: https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry - then scroll down and click 'Start Now'

• If you provide your postcode, you should be able to select your property.

• Hopefully, it should tell you that information is available for the Freehold and the Leasehold of your property - you want the Freehold

• You might have to create an account to continue - then select 'View Available Documents' - and you want the Title Register

When you eventually download the Freehold Title Register document and open it - it should tell you the name of your freeholder.



As I say, you've been looking at an old leasehold title register - if you want, you can go back and select 'Leasehold' for your property and then 'Title Register' (and pay £3) - and you should get a current leasehold title register showing you as owner.

Robinette

eddddy said:

• Hopefully, it should tell you that information is available for the Freehold and the Leasehold of your property - you want the Freehold.

There is no freehold information. It is 'good leasehold', which appears to mean that the freehold title is unregistered.

Out of curiosity, I looked at my neighbour's house and that is also leasehold only. So are the other houses nearby - except one. I looked at the freehold and it has the same freeholder as mine from 1938 but also an addition in 1995:

By a Conveyance of the land in this title dated 30 January 1995 made between (1) John William Hesketh Goddard (Vendor) and (2) David Edmund Blake Berry and Vanessa Shirley Berry (Purchasers) the land was conveyed subject as follows:- "Subject also to those matters contained or referred to in a Conveyance (hereinafter called "the Conveyance") dated 12th May 1938 and made between Arthur Joseph Colborne (1) and Charles Frederick Goddard Thomas Alexander Sutton and John Crewe Wood (2) as affecting the said property xx xxxxxxx Road aforesaid". NOTE: No further particulars of the Conveyance dated 12 May 1938 referred to above were supplied on first registration.

No idea what this means or even if it is relevant to my property...

eddddy

So it sounds like the freehold is unregistered - which probably means it hasn't changed hands since about 1990. (But it's still possible that it changed hands one or more times between 1945 and 1990.)

The law says that you can still buy the freehold - even if you can't trace the freeholder.

You have to apply to a court, and pay the court for the freehold - and they will hold-on to the money until the freeholder turns up to claim it.

But... the court expects you to have made efforts to trace the freeholder first. And it seems you have to make fairly extensive efforts. I've heard stories of courts turning away applicants who 'haven't tried hard enough' to find their freeholder.

And the costs of going to court, hiring tracing agents, etc, will probably be very high - probably much more than the cost of the freehold.




Edit to add...

The government has been discussing leasehold reforms for a few years - and the difficulty of buying the freehold with an absent freeholder was included in the discussion.

So maybe the law will be reformed to make it easier - but that reform could still be some years away.

Robinette

My thoughts exactly. It would be different if it were a short lease but with over 900 years still to run, there would appear to be little point in spending a lot of money to buy the freehold. 
Thanks for your help - and to the other people who replied.