Combining flats into one larger flat?

BonaDea

The leaseholders of the other two flats might object if they are now expected to contribute a third of the costs each where before they each contributed a quarter.

eddddy

BonaDea said:

The leaseholders of the other two flats might object if they are now expected to contribute a third of the costs each where before they each contributed a quarter.

That's not how leases generally work.

To give a simplified example, the leases will typically say something like this:

• Lease of Flat 1: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"
• Lease of Flat 2: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"
• Lease of Flat 3: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"
• Lease of Flat 4: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"

The OP can combine flats 1 and 2 and create a new lease for the new flat, but the leases for flats 3 and 4 will still say:

• Lease of Flat 3: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"
• Lease of Flat 4: "You must pay 25% of the buildings insurance, buildings maintenance and building repairs cost"

(unless the leaseholders of flat 3 and flat 4 agree to change their leases.)

BonaDea

For many years I owned flats in two converted buildings - one of 3, one of 4 - and when a communal cost arose I don't think anyone ever consulted their lease to see what it said their share of costs was.  Presumably we all should have (at the risk perhaps of bad neighbourly relations if the leases didn't conform to our intuitions about who should pay what?) but I think people generally just assume that if there are 3 flats they'll pay a third, etc.  Obviously this wouldn't seem at all fair if there were very large discrepancies in size between the flats but it worked well in the two buildings I have knowledge of.  

eddddy

BonaDea said:

For many years I owned flats in two converted buildings - one of 3, one of 4 - and when a communal cost arose I don't think anyone ever consulted their lease to see what it said their share of costs was.  Presumably we all should have (at the risk perhaps of bad neighbourly relations if the leases didn't conform to our intuitions about who should pay what?) but I think people generally just assume that if there are 3 flats they'll pay a third, etc.  Obviously this wouldn't seem at all fair if there were very large discrepancies in size between the flats but it worked well in the two buildings I have knowledge of.  

It seems that you're saying you haven't read your lease and you pay service charge bills without checking them - and you you assume other people do the same as you.

I'm not sure that's good advice for other leaseholders to follow - and for freeholders to rely on.

And I'm not sure why that should impact on the OP's decision on whether to convert 2 flats into 1.

user1977

BonaDea said:

For many years I owned flats in two converted buildings - one of 3, one of 4 - and when a communal cost arose I don't think anyone ever consulted their lease to see what it said their share of costs was.  Presumably we all should have (at the risk perhaps of bad neighbourly relations if the leases didn't conform to our intuitions about who should pay what?) 

Presumably everybody already had advice about the relevant share before they went ahead with their purchases - didn't you? That's a normal (and pretty much essential) part of what your solicitor is checking and reporting to you.

BonaDea

In both buildings the leaseholders owned the freehold.  No management company, no service charges, no dissatisfaction with the way we chose to operate.