Making two flats into one property.

ThisIsWeird

Hi.
This concerns a couple of flats in an old 6-flat building, currently one flat on each floor.
The owner of the top flat is considering buying the one below, with the idea of ultimately converting it into a maisonette.
Would the FH have the ultimate day over having them combined? Could he scupper these plans just because he felt like it, or hold the flats owner to effective ransom?
Thanks.

user1977

We can't read the leases from here...what do they say about alterations? I would doubt they give the leaseholders a right to merge two flats together, as (apart from anything else) I would guess the works would involve components of the building which have not been demised along with either flat.

ThisIsWeird

Thanks, user.

Sorry, I don't have sight of the deeds. I understand the owner of the top flat has asked about making alternations to the inside of the second flat, which will need FH approval, but I don't think they've yet suggested they may wish to amalgamate them.

Yes, a stupid Q at this early stage. Just wondered how extensive the powers of a FH are? Do they have the right to simply prevent this from happening if the deeds don't state so (I imagine the deeds won't say anything about combining flats - do they tend to?)

user1977

I think it would be safe to assume that the freeholder would have absolute discretion about it - it would seem very odd to have leases which allow the leaseholders to go off and reorganise the building how they wanted to.

Though generally, is it going to be worthwhile anyway? I can imagine somebody later coming along and thinking "why has nobody thought about how much money they could make by subdividing this duplex flat into two individual flats..."

ThisIsWeird

It would make sense in this case, as 4-5 bed properties in such a building are very rare, and the few that exist very costly.

I'll find out whether he's confirmed his idea is a goer and would have permission.

I certainly agree that leaseholders cannot start making alternations without permission, and he's already sent them an outline of his plans, but I was wondering if a FH can just say 'Non!' for no good reason? 

Thanks.

theoretica

I suspect that planning permission would also have a say - more usual to come up about subdividing a property. 

eddddy

How would the two flats be connected? For example:

• Would a new hole be cut in the floor of the upper flat to put a staircase to the lower floor?

• Or would the flat owner want to "buy" part of the existing communal staircase from the freeholder - to close it off from communal use and incorporate it into their flat?

If it's a case of cutting a hole in the floor, the next step would be to check the lease to see who owns the floor (e.g. the floor joists)?

• If the flat owner owns the the floor, that's a good step in the right direction.

• If the freeholder owns the floor (or any part of it), the freeholder can refuse to let anyone cut a hole in it, or charge the flat owner a premium for letting them do it.  (The premium could be any amount - e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

If the flat owner wants to "buy" part of the communal staircase...

• The freeholder can refuse to sell it, or charge any premium they like for it.(e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

• The other 4 flat owners will probably need their leases changed. One of more of the flat owners can refuse to agree to have their leases changed. Or one of more of the flat owners could ask for a payment to agree to have their leases changed. (They could ask for any amount - e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

but I was wondering if a FH can just say 'Non!' for no good reason? 

I think you're still not quite getting it - this isn't merely a leaseholder making an alteration within the flat(s) (which is possibly something to which the freeholder cannot unreasonably withhold consent, to the extent their consent is needed at all) - it's making alterations outwith the flat(s), which is not something any lease is likely to have anticipated. In which case, it would (probably) require a variation of the lease(s), at the discretion of the freeholder.

ThisIsWeird

eddddy said:

How would the two flats be connected? For example:

• Would a new hole be cut in the floor of the upper flat to put a staircase to the lower floor?

• Or would the flat owner want to "buy" part of the existing communal staircase from the freeholder - to close it off from communal use and incorporate it into their flat?

If it's a case of cutting a hole in the floor, the next step would be to check the lease to see who owns the floor (e.g. the floor joists)?

• If the flat owner owns the the floor, that's a good step in the right direction.

• If the freeholder owns the floor (or any part of it), the freeholder can refuse to let anyone cut a hole in it, or charge the flat owner a premium for letting them do it.  (The premium could be any amount - e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

If the flat owner wants to "buy" part of the communal staircase...

• The freeholder can refuse to sell it, or charge any premium they like for it.(e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

• The other 4 flat owners will probably need their leases changed. One of more of the flat owners can refuse to agree to have their leases changed. Or one of more of the flat owners could ask for a payment to agree to have their leases changed. (They could ask for any amount - e.g. tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds)

Hi Eddddy.
These are large Victorian terraces which were converted into flats many decades ago. The top stair landing has the door to Flat 5, and  - at right angles - the one to flat 6. Inside the flat 6 door is the continued wall of flat 5 on your left, and that's theoretically where the connecting door would go - a single doorway cut through a wall. Opposite this is the existing stair to flat 6.
Flat 6's owner is currently discussing these changes with the FH, and seeking permission, and I suspect there will be some cost in obtaining it.
I was just wondering what the ultimate 'powers' of the FH could be. Can they arbitrarily say 'no', or change their mind? 
I've asked the flat's owner about this, whether they can securely legally lock in his decision before purchase, but was seeking the info myself too.

ThisIsWeird

user1977 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

but I was wondering if a FH can just say 'Non!' for no good reason? 

I think you're still not quite getting it - this isn't merely a leaseholder making an alteration within the flat(s) (which is possibly something to which the freeholder cannot unreasonably withhold consent, to the extent their consent is needed at all) - it's making alterations outwith the flat(s), which is not something any lease is likely to have anticipated. In which case, it would (probably) require a variation of the lease(s), at the discretion of the freeholder.

Thanks. I do get it, and hopefully my reply to Eddddy clarifies the situation.

eddddy

ThisIsWeird said:

...a single doorway cut through a wall. 

....
I was just wondering what the ultimate 'powers' of the FH could be.

The freeholders 'powers' or 'rights' are what it says in the lease. Similarly, the leaseholder's 'rights' are what it says in the lease. (Which I can't see.)


But it's the same principle as I said previously.

• Who does the (entire thickness) of the wall belong to? (According to the lease.)

• If some/all the thickness of the wall belongs to the freeholder, the freeholder can probably refuse to let anyone cut a doorway through it - or alternatively, make them pay a fee for cutting a hole.

• If the entire thickness of the wall belongs to the leaseholders, then it's a case of reading the lease to see what it says about cutting holes in their walls.