Co-owners of freehold selling their flat

arciere

NameUnavailable said:

The freeholders being yourself and the other party? Are you sure that their lease doesn't give them sole use of the front garden? If the leases don't say anything about the garden then it's something else you should seek to rectify now whilst you have the opportunity as again, it may only lead to further probelms down the line.

I don't have their lease at hand right now, but I'm confident our leases are the same. Also because it would have been something they would have mentioned from day 1 if that was the case.

arciere

user1977 said:

arciere said:

NameUnavailable said:

The garden will be owned by the freehold/ers, but the lease should state who has use of it.

From your original post you seemed surprised that you were approached by their solicitors about the sale and transfer of freehold but now you say you have already discussed it previously with them? I'm confused as to your original query now!

Regardless, we were never informed that they were about to give our personal details to someone.

You're looking at that point rather oddly. Your neighbours are perfectly entitled to pass on your details to their solicitor in order to progress the sale of their property. What's the problem? As above, if you were selling then you'd do the same thing.

The way I see it is this: out of the blue (it was out of the blue if you keep in mind that the sale-thing has been going on for at least 5 years now), I got an email from a solicitor I had never heard of asking me to upload a personal ID and other documentation to verify my identity via a link. No reference to anything else (not even the property address), and no other details to support this request, other than my email address and my (misspelled) name. So I had to Google them, call them for half a day until I finally managed to get through and nobody knew why I got that email.

Later, they called me back, asked me my postcode and only then said that I would need to speak with my neighbour because they couldn't give me any information.

I think that warning them about that beforehand would have been the approach that I would've taken if I had to do the same thing?

arciere

NameUnavailable said:

If the leases don't say anything about the garden then it's something else you should seek to rectify now whilst you have the opportunity as again, it may only lead to further probelms down the line.

I'm sure you're right, but what problems do you think we could face, if we leave the front garden out of the leases (maintenance aside)?

NameUnavailable

arciere said:

NameUnavailable said:

If the leases don't say anything about the garden then it's something else you should seek to rectify now whilst you have the opportunity as again, it may only lead to further probelms down the line.

I'm sure you're right, but what problems do you think we could face, if we leave the front garden out of the leases (maintenance aside)?

The lease is defective and the lack of any mention of the front garden leaves it open to dispute (as it seems has happened already with arguments over plants and costs etc). It's surprising that your solicitors didn't pick up on this point when you bought (and maybe the buyers solicitors will do).

eddddy

Just to emphasise - it's not a problem that the front garden isn't demised to either flat in their leases. Many leases are set-up that way.

It simply means that the front garden belongs to the freeholder(s).

In that case, typically, the lease would explain that...

• The front garden is a 'common part'
• The 'common parts' (i.e. the front garden) are maintained by the freeholder
• The leaseholders will reimburse the freeholder for those maintenance costs
• The lease would also specify what (if anything) the leaseholders can use the 'common part' (i.e. the front garden) for

That's a typical lease set-up, it could be done in other ways.

arciere

eddddy said:

In that case, typically, the lease would explain that...

• The front garden is a 'common part'
• The 'common parts' (i.e. the front garden) are maintained by the freeholder
• The leaseholders will reimburse the freeholder for those maintenance costs
• The lease would also specify what (if anything) the leaseholders can use the 'common part' (i.e. the front garden) for

That's a typical lease set-up, it could be done in other ways.

All I can read that refers to 'common parts' is the following paragraph. It does not mention 'front garden' specifically. I guess you could say it's included in this definition ("all other areas the ownership of which is retained by the Lessor"), but that would be a stretch, since the Lessor could also own the front garden of the house next door, for example.

“The Common Parts” shall mean and include where applicable (though not by way of limitation) all and any main entrances passages landings staircases (internal and external) access yards footpaths means of refuse disposal and all other areas the ownership of which is retained by the Lessor and are intended to be for the common use of all Flat Owners

To clarify, the building is an end-of-terrace house and both entrances are located at the side of the front garden, so the garden itself is not a passage or entrance.

eddddy

arciere said:

“The Common Parts” shall mean and include where applicable (though not by way of limitation) all and any main entrances passages landings staircases (internal and external) access yards footpaths means of refuse disposal and all other areas the ownership of which is retained by the Lessor and are intended to be for the common use of all Flat Owners

To me, that sounds like a perfect description of the front garden - specifically "all other areas the ownership of which is retained by the Lessor"

The front garden has been retained by the lessor (i.e. it has been retained by the freeholder). So the front garden is a Common Part.






Edit to add...

arciere said:

 I guess you could say it's included in this definition ("all other areas the ownership of which is retained by the Lessor"), but that would be a stretch, since the Lessor could also own the front garden of the house next door, for example.

(Using your logic, if the freeholder owned his own home somewhere, his house would be a Common Part in relation to your lease - because it's not demised to you or your neighbour.)


Anyway, typically, the house next door would be on a different freehold title - so its front garden is irrelevant to your lease.

However, if both houses were on the same freehold title for some reason, then the other house's front garden would be a Common Part in relation to your lease.

NameUnavailable

eddddy said:

Just to emphasise - it's not a problem that the front garden isn't demised to either flat in their leases. Many leases are set-up that way.

It simply means that the front garden belongs to the freeholder(s).

In that case, typically, the lease would explain that...

• The front garden is a 'common part'
• The 'common parts' (i.e. the front garden) are maintained by the freeholder
• The leaseholders will reimburse the freeholder for those maintenance costs
• The lease would also specify what (if anything) the leaseholders can use the 'common part' (i.e. the front garden) for

That's a typical lease set-up, it could be done in other ways.

I said the lease was defective if it didn't make any reference to the front garden (not that it had to be demised to either flat). The OP has clarified now that the lease does make reference to it as a common part so agreed it is not 'owned' by either flat.

Who decides whether there should be plants/flowers etc. or not is another matter, although with only 2 parties you would think that such a decision wouldn't be complicated. As this thread demonstates however, if one wants plants and the other doesn't, it causes problems!

penners324

Getting them gone as soon as possible should be the priority? Seems a better plan than extorting a couple hundred quid from them to improve the garden 

HampshireH

I've read all 4 pages and I'm still confused as to why you wish to obstruct the sale of someone who threatened you and caused damage.

But the thread does seem to indicate as freeholders you have an equal right, based on what you have said,  to the garden so....


Before you planted the plants did you seek permission from your neighbour....were they agreeable? 

If not then it's no different to them removing said plants without your permission or you being agreeable.

Sounds like the area should just be laid to lawn and mowed occasionally.  Visually appealing, no arguments
 Put your plants in your own gardens

I'd be seeing this as an opportunity to move on and make friends with the new neighbours but it doesn't sound like that's likely.