Freeholder blackmailing me on previous owners internal changes

ThisIsWeird

Flipjango said:

eddddy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

If I were the OP, I would write back to my Solicitor along the following lines:
"With reference to the query raised by XXX concerning the floor plan and a deed of variation / licence for the changes, I understand that no such agreement is required.  The deed of variation / licence will only be required under the lease clause 3(1)(f) if there are structural alterations to the flat.  As I understand it, the change to the bathroom does not constitute a structural alteration and, hence, no deed of variation / licence or other consent is required.  I would be grateful if you would review and confirm (or otherwise) your agreement with my understanding.  Assuming you are in agreement, I trust you will be able to bring this to a swift resolution via both the Purchaser's Solicitors and the Freeholder's Solicitors.  Kind Regards, OP."

It does seem as though this whole scenario is only created because the legal representatives for all parties (Vendor, Purchaser, Freeholder) have failed to properly understand the situation.  

It sounds like it was the OP who requested the Deed of Variation - not the freeholder, or anyone else.

And the OP doesn't mention a buyer. My assumption is the OP proactively requested a Deed of Variation because they hoped it would smooth an eventual sale.

So perhaps the OP's next step is to say to the freeholder words to the effect of:

"Oops - I didn't read the lease properly. Now I've read the lease, I see I don't need a Deed of Variation."


(And hope that the Freeholder doesn't try to use this as an unjustified way of derailing an eventual sale.)

You're right, it was me that requested the deed of variation, but it was because the buyers solicitor has requested it annoyingly. Not sure how to get out of it now. 

Ask your pathetic solicitor to tell the buyer's more competent solicitor that it ain't necessary, citing the paragraph in the deeds that refers to 'structural'. This is an additional, lightweight stud wall. 

housebuyer143

Flipjango said:

eddddy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

If I were the OP, I would write back to my Solicitor along the following lines:
"With reference to the query raised by XXX concerning the floor plan and a deed of variation / licence for the changes, I understand that no such agreement is required.  The deed of variation / licence will only be required under the lease clause 3(1)(f) if there are structural alterations to the flat.  As I understand it, the change to the bathroom does not constitute a structural alteration and, hence, no deed of variation / licence or other consent is required.  I would be grateful if you would review and confirm (or otherwise) your agreement with my understanding.  Assuming you are in agreement, I trust you will be able to bring this to a swift resolution via both the Purchaser's Solicitors and the Freeholder's Solicitors.  Kind Regards, OP."

It does seem as though this whole scenario is only created because the legal representatives for all parties (Vendor, Purchaser, Freeholder) have failed to properly understand the situation.  

It sounds like it was the OP who requested the Deed of Variation - not the freeholder, or anyone else.

And the OP doesn't mention a buyer. My assumption is the OP proactively requested a Deed of Variation because they hoped it would smooth an eventual sale.

So perhaps the OP's next step is to say to the freeholder words to the effect of:

"Oops - I didn't read the lease properly. Now I've read the lease, I see I don't need a Deed of Variation."


(And hope that the Freeholder doesn't try to use this as an unjustified way of derailing an eventual sale.)

You're right, it was me that requested the deed of variation, but it was because the buyers solicitor has requested it annoyingly. Not sure how to get out of it now. 

Don't blame yourself, so many solicitors especially the conveyancing farm one's just don't have the time to read stuff in detail and just get an email from the other side and relay it to you..I had to research and send proof that I didn't need a build over agreement when I sold because the buyer says they wanted it when it wasn't even needed and my solicitor did nothing to look into whether it was needed.

I would go back to you solicitor and tell them you have actually read the lease and don't think you need the deed of variation at all. Then you can simply go to the freeholder once confirmed and say " sorry, I was mistaken, upon reading the lease it appears I don't need it because of X and y". Then wait to see what they say. It should be easy to unravel once everyone is on the same page. 

Grumpy_chap

Flipjango said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The timeline I assumed was:

1. Flat marketed for sale and offer accepted (SSTC)
2. Buyer noticed the change of floor plan and Buyer's Solicitor requested OP's Solicitor to get the lease revision in place.  
3. Buyer's Solicitor should have read the lease and realised deed of variation not required - this may have happened (we don't know).  The Buyers may have still said "please ask - we'd feel more comfortable if it was normalised".  Equally, the Buyers / Buyer's Solicitor may not have known whether or not the changes are structural.
4. OP's Solicitor should have read the lease and challenged the request (or sought clarification from OP) - seems this did not happen.
5. OP's Solicitor passed on the request from Buyer's Solicitor to OP and recommended OP request the deed of variation.
6. LL's Solicitor received the request for licence / consent and simply assumed the consent must be required under the lease - no reason for the LL to doubt the request assessed as required by a.n.other (OP).
7. LL has agreed in principle to the request, subject to a financial agreement representing betterment of value.
8. OP has posted here, with a clearer reading of the lease than OP's Solicitor.

Perhaps, the OP can confirm the order of events.

Yes, absolutely spot on, this is exactly what has happened. My solicitor has turned out to be a total idiot, and forwarded an email from the buyers solicitors onto the landlords agent without my permission, where they requested the deed of variation. They then sent this to the landlords solicitor and its all kicked off. I'm not sure how to untangle things now. 

Unfortunately, Solicitors sometimes seem to act as little more than very expensive mail delivery service...

I think my suggested approach upthread would still be valid:

Grumpy_chap said:

If I were the OP, I would write back to my Solicitor along the following lines:
"With reference to the query raised by XXX concerning the floor plan and a deed of variation / licence for the changes, I understand that no such agreement is required.  The deed of variation / licence will only be required under the lease clause 3(1)(f) if there are structural alterations to the flat.  As I understand it, the change to the bathroom does not constitute a structural alteration and, hence, no deed of variation / licence or other consent is required.  I would be grateful if you would review and confirm (or otherwise) your agreement with my understanding.  Assuming you are in agreement, I trust you will be able to bring this to a swift resolution via both the Purchaser's Solicitors and the Freeholder's Solicitors.  Kind Regards, OP."

That all assumes that the change is limited to the stud wall and no structural alterations.
(I am finding it hard to imagine how a stud wall could be added to create a bathroom without leaving another room unexpectedly small plus a bathroom-sized room to be re-purposed.)

Flipjango

It’s a flat that had a massive lounge and large separate kitchen. The bathroom was moved into the corner of the lounge making a second smaller bedroom in the remaining space, then the kitchen was moved into the old bathroom leaving the large kitchen to be converted into a lounge. 

chalky_white_2

The creation of a new kitchen and bathroom area may require building regulations. These are to cover suitable drainage for habitation, for your flat and others in the building. Hence my previous comment on this being structural.

The forwarding of an email to the landlord with items relating to a deed by OP’s solicitor was poor. This has likely prevented the option of indemnity insurance being used, which would have been a quicker and cheaper solution.

Jonboy_1984

Has the lease been extended since the work was completed?

JM68

Unless you can satisfy your buyers your (current) sale won't proceed.

The freeholder knows this.  The freeholder is also not obliged to do anything to help you sell, unless you either make it worth their while (i.e. pay them whatever they want) or take it to a tribunal, which will take a long time.

Your options to sell now seem to be either convince your buyers that a variation is not required or make an offer to the freeholder or find a new buyer and hope they won't have the same issue.

If those don't work consider a solicitors letter of notice of intention to make a tribunal claim and probably a long wait to put it back on the market.

Everything else is just noise.

sheramber

So the flat was changed from a one bedroom flat to a two bedroom flat.

Flipjango

chalky_white_2 said:

The creation of a new kitchen and bathroom area may require building regulations. These are to cover suitable drainage for habitation, for your flat and others in the building. Hence my previous comment on this being structural.

The forwarding of an email to the landlord with items relating to a deed by OP’s solicitor was poor. This has likely prevented the option of indemnity insurance being used, which would have been a quicker and cheaper solution.

Agreed. I'm really cross with them and now we can't use an indemnity. 

The liability for building regs has expired regardless. I've owned the flat for 10 years and the flat was dilapidated when I bought it so the works must have been at least 15-20 years ago.

Flipjango

Jonboy_1984 said:

Has the lease been extended since the work was completed?

Possibly. The previous owner extended the lease, but I don't know when the works were done so it could have been before or after. Does this have any relevance? I'd be interested if there were something in that I could use! Thanks