joint freeholder of leasehold flat

NameUnavailable

You really must sort out the insurance as the way you describe it now, if there was a fire, say, you would all lose your propoerties!

The lease you have should set out whether or not the loft is demised to your flat. As suggested, if not, you should consider making an offer for the agreement that you can extend into it, but you would also need to have the leases amended and agreement as already mentioned over future maintenance costs. You would still have to do this if you owned the freehold of the building, the leases apply regardless.

Your neighbours will also have to put up with several months of building work etc.

propertyrental

Insurance - what do your leases say about who should insure (freeholder? Individual leaseholders?) Read your lease.

Why might they not sell? the freehold is not just about ground rent or service charges. It's also about control - eg enforcing terms someone's lease who is n breach, or......granting/denying consent for building works.

Plus they have no obligation to sell their share to you, though they might under the terms of the lease be required to sell the freehold share along with a lease sale.

the attic. Adds considerably to the value of the lease, so freeholder likely to want a share. Freeholder might also be concerned about construction noise, or simply not want the property structure altered.

    

ThisIsWeird

Woooodsy18 said:

yes the new buyer of the flat has share of FH inc in purchase.    I have been trying to get all shared freeholders to get a joint building insurance but they insist on being happy with theirs!  i have said its not really a question of being happy its that if something goes wrong we will have 4 x insurance companies and mine  has said it will probably be void!  so am trying to make them understand this.
Ideally i would like a co set up with us as directors to manage it but dont think this will be wanted as have mentioned it before!
not sure what an SIP is sorry!  but yes its the dude selling his flat that moved boundaries so hoping that he either declares this as we will need to approve it or has just put it back as previously so he wont need approval of other FH and change of land registry

Thanks.
SIP is the Seller Information Pack, now referred to as a TA6 or something. In this, the seller is asked Q's about any actual or potential disputes with other property owners. If the seller of the ground floor flat is aware that there is a question over the garden boundary - I presume something has been said to them, and this can be evidenced - then they had better declare this in the doc, or they can be held liable by the new owner.**
As said by others, the buildings insurance really should be communal, and a single entity. As it stands, if one person neglects to insure their bit, then you will all be stuffed. This needs bringing up at a meeting with some urgency - I'm astonished that the other three aren't unaware of the risk. The individual flat owners can then have separate contents insurances, if they wish - strongly advised, including Legal Protection. You don't need the house to burn down to realise how ineffective the current setup is - a simple leak of water between one flat and another could do this. Are you sure this is the case - I actually cannot see an insurance co. providing 'buildings' for just one flat?
Rereading your OP, I see I misunderstood what it is that you were offering. You were hoping to buy the two FH shares of the ground floor? In which case, I'm not at all surprised they refused - they'd lose much of the control over subsequent decisions on the building. For instance, you could have your loft conversion, but could say 'no' to them having a garden shed :-). So, I suggest that this is a non-starter - and rightly so.
What is really needed is a review of the whole current shared FH matter, of which requesting the permission to extend into the loft is one - at a cost to you and the other upstairs flat.
One the GF flat has sold, you'll then have 4 flats, 4 owners, each with a 25% share of the FH. (This is usually done via an independent FH Management Co., of which each flat's owner is a director with equal voting rights). You'll then hopefully have 3 other rational and reasonable folk to discuss all the issues with, of which insurance and ongoing maintenance are two. 

Anyhoo, the loft. Permission for this should be doable, but you need to understand that it provides nothing for the two downstairs properties - other than possible envy - so that needs to change. For instance, responsibility for maintaining the roof structure - rafters and tiles - is usually fully shared between all 4 flats (read your deeds to confirm), and is considered one of the single biggest ongoing costs for a building, often quite emotive if the roof is nearing the end of its life - a sizeable bill is hanging over everyone. If the top two flats took on sole responsibility for this, then I know that my interest would be piqued as a ground-dweller. Then there's the relative values of the 4 flats, from before to after this roof conversion. Again, an agreement to split the maintenance contributions to the sink fund based on actual property value (or sq footage) would not only be fair, but an added incentive to the G-Ds.

Also, you and the other upstairs flat would need to cover the legal fees in altering the leases to include these changes.

And then possibly a wee sum to each GDer to 'compensate' for the 'inconvenience and disruption'. This shouldn't be needed - they have no entitlement - but likely will...*

But forget trying to buy their shares of the FH - they'd be nuts to do this.

* I cannot see any of the GD flats being entitled to an 'uplift' sum, as it just doesn't affect them at all except positively - they will have reduced outgoings from then on, possibly significant when it comes to the roof. It shouldn't matter to any other flat how 'big' or 'expensive' the other ones are compared to theirs, and it certainly won't matter to anyone subsequently moving in to any of them - it'll be accepted as fact. But, it's an emotive issue, so in addition to taking on the extra responsibilities as I've mentioned above, perhaps be prepared to throw in a wee sweetener "to compensate for any noise and disruption during the work". The only other issue I can see is if the conversion will negatively affect the building's appearance.

** The cynic in me might see this as a useful future lever. Say the GF seller makes no mention of this boundary issue and it comes to light after the purchase, the new GF flat owner will likely be quite peeved against their new neighbour/vendor. And, in any actual dispute, you would be morally bound to confirm that the vendor did know. In which case, you'll likely have the new owner onside with any future reasonable and correct building decisions. (Obviously this presumes the GF owner is currently unreasonable!)

Bookworm105

RHemmings said:

As a buyer, I would not want to be in a situation where I'm in a building with four flats, and the other three own 100% of the freehold and I own none. 

that would be exactly my stance as well - when buying a flat a share of the freehold is a valuable item as it prevents being held to outright ransom by "others"

Woooodsy18

ThisIsWeird said:

Woooodsy18 said:

yes the new buyer of the flat has share of FH inc in purchase.    I have been trying to get all shared freeholders to get a joint building insurance but they insist on being happy with theirs!  i have said its not really a question of being happy its that if something goes wrong we will have 4 x insurance companies and mine  has said it will probably be void!  so am trying to make them understand this.
Ideally i would like a co set up with us as directors to manage it but dont think this will be wanted as have mentioned it before!
not sure what an SIP is sorry!  but yes its the dude selling his flat that moved boundaries so hoping that he either declares this as we will need to approve it or has just put it back as previously so he wont need approval of other FH and change of land registry

Thanks.
SIP is the Seller Information Pack, now referred to as a TA6 or something. In this, the seller is asked Q's about any actual or potential disputes with other property owners. If the seller of the ground floor flat is aware that there is a question over the garden boundary - I presume something has been said to them, and this can be evidenced - then they had better declare this in the doc, or they can be held liable by the new owner.**
As said by others, the buildings insurance really should be communal, and a single entity. As it stands, if one person neglects to insure their bit, then you will all be stuffed. This needs bringing up at a meeting with some urgency - I'm astonished that the other three aren't unaware of the risk. The individual flat owners can then have separate contents insurances, if they wish - strongly advised, including Legal Protection. You don't need the house to burn down to realise how ineffective the current setup is - a simple leak of water between one flat and another could do this. Are you sure this is the case - I actually cannot see an insurance co. providing 'buildings' for just one flat?
Rereading your OP, I see I misunderstood what it is that you were offering. You were hoping to buy the two FH shares of the ground floor? In which case, I'm not at all surprised they refused - they'd lose much of the control over subsequent decisions on the building. For instance, you could have your loft conversion, but could say 'no' to them having a garden shed :-). So, I suggest that this is a non-starter - and rightly so.
What is really needed is a review of the whole current shared FH matter, of which requesting the permission to extend into the loft is one - at a cost to you and the other upstairs flat.
One the GF flat has sold, you'll then have 4 flats, 4 owners, each with a 25% share of the FH. (This is usually done via an independent FH Management Co., of which each flat's owner is a director with equal voting rights). You'll then hopefully have 3 other rational and reasonable folk to discuss all the issues with, of which insurance and ongoing maintenance are two. 

Anyhoo, the loft. Permission for this should be doable, but you need to understand that it provides nothing for the two downstairs properties - other than possible envy - so that needs to change. For instance, responsibility for maintaining the roof structure - rafters and tiles - is usually fully shared between all 4 flats (read your deeds to confirm), and is considered one of the single biggest ongoing costs for a building, often quite emotive if the roof is nearing the end of its life - a sizeable bill is hanging over everyone. If the top two flats took on sole responsibility for this, then I know that my interest would be piqued as a ground-dweller. Then there's the relative values of the 4 flats, from before to after this roof conversion. Again, an agreement to split the maintenance contributions to the sink fund based on actual property value (or sq footage) would not only be fair, but an added incentive to the G-Ds.

Also, you and the other upstairs flat would need to cover the legal fees in altering the leases to include these changes.

And then possibly a wee sum to each GDer to 'compensate' for the 'inconvenience and disruption'. This shouldn't be needed - they have no entitlement - but likely will...*

But forget trying to buy their shares of the FH - they'd be nuts to do this.

* I cannot see any of the GD flats being entitled to an 'uplift' sum, as it just doesn't affect them at all except positively - they will have reduced outgoings from then on, possibly significant when it comes to the roof. It shouldn't matter to any other flat how 'big' or 'expensive' the other ones are compared to theirs, and it certainly won't matter to anyone subsequently moving in to any of them - it'll be accepted as fact. But, it's an emotive issue, so in addition to taking on the extra responsibilities as I've mentioned above, perhaps be prepared to throw in a wee sweetener "to compensate for any noise and disruption during the work". The only other issue I can see is if the conversion will negatively affect the building's appearance.

** The cynic in me might see this as a useful future lever. Say the GF seller makes no mention of this boundary issue and it comes to light after the purchase, the new GF flat owner will likely be quite peeved against their new neighbour/vendor. And, in any actual dispute, you would be morally bound to confirm that the vendor did know. In which case, you'll likely have the new owner onside with any future reasonable and correct building decisions. (Obviously this presumes the GF owner is currently unreasonable!)

thank you so much for your advice and time .   i think it basically does come down to flat envy sadly.  as we have offered a large “sweetner”, legal fees and to takeover maintenance of roof but sadly it is still a no go.  basically he doesnt want us to do what he cannot do!   re the boundary lines - i will have to see when the new owners move in in a couple of months time and then see if i have any “leverage”!     re the building insurance - i have told the other two owners that for us to have a joint building insurance is the way forward but they just dont seem to get it and so we are still paying out individually.  one of the flat even has the same insurance company as mine for the insurance - so mad!!   i might try and get my solicitor to write a letter to them to explain the situation ???  or even to say that they will take full responsibility of the building as our insurance will be void if it continues as is - that might get them moving!

ThisIsWeird

If they still think you are trying to buy the GF flat's Freehold shares, then you are on a hiding to nothing. So, please clarify that point first - if you are doing this, then stop!
Then, personally, I'd wait until the other GF flat sells, and that will mean that the remaining GF flat is no more powerful than any one other. 
Then you put your case to all four, making it appealing. In theory, 3 folk should be ok about this, and it then becomes a majority decision. (Assuming you have a constitution written up to that effect).
If I I lived in a GF flat in your building, I'd be supportive, as it's no skin of my nose + a potential reduction in maintenance cost. 
Assuming the situation is as you say.