Buying Flat - Lease still shows original Landlord but there is a new Landlord

fozziefozzie

We are buying a leasehold flat and have received a copy of the lease but the Landlord listed is not the one we have been advised is the current landlord. I understand that the lease will show the original tenant, but should the Landlord's name not have been changed?

user1977

The lease does not get updated with the current landlord and tenant, it's always the "lease between smith and jones" no matter if their respective interests are later transferred.

fozziefozzie

Is it always a requirement to sign additional Deeds of Covenants? The Lease appears to contain all of the same or similar covenants and we are signing a deed of transfer, so why are further Deeds of Covenants required?

eddddy

fozziefozzie said:

Is it always a requirement to sign additional Deeds of Covenants? The Lease appears to contain all of the same or similar covenants and we are signing a deed of transfer, so why are further Deeds of Covenants required?

Many lawyers agree with you that a Deed of Covenants is unnecessary, because all the covenants already appear in the lease, and you are bound by the lease.

But some leases say that a Deed of Covenants must be signed - so you would be breaching the lease if you don't sign one - even though it serves no additional legal purpose.

And even if the lease doesn't say a Deed of Covenants is required, but the freeholder/management company still request one, I guess you need to take a view on whether you want to delay things by having an argument about it.


Assuming the Deed of Covenants contains exactly the same covenants as appear in the lease, I don't believe there's any harm in signing it. But maybe check that with your solicitor.

fozziefozzie

thanks. I have to say it all seems to be money for old rope but a necessary evil. 

Brie

As long as the current freeholder has signed everything that's required I would have thought that was ok.

fozziefozzie

eddddy said:

fozziefozzie said:

Is it always a requirement to sign additional Deeds of Covenants? The Lease appears to contain all of the same or similar covenants and we are signing a deed of transfer, so why are further Deeds of Covenants required?

Many lawyers agree with you that a Deed of Covenants is unnecessary, because all the covenants already appear in the lease, and you are bound by the lease.

But some leases say that a Deed of Covenants must be signed - so you would be breaching the lease if you don't sign one - even though it serves no additional legal purpose.

And even if the lease doesn't say a Deed of Covenants is required, but the freeholder/management company still request one, I guess you need to take a view on whether you want to delay things by having an argument about it.


Assuming the Deed of Covenants contains exactly the same covenants as appear in the lease, I don't believe there's any harm in signing it. But maybe check that with your solicitor.

and on the same subject, why then do we need to pay for a Deed of Covenant for the Managing Agent and a Deed of Covenant for the Landlord? Together with a Notice of Transfer for both parties too. It all seems like such repetition.

eddddy

fozziefozzie said:

eddddy said:

fozziefozzie said:

Is it always a requirement to sign additional Deeds of Covenants? The Lease appears to contain all of the same or similar covenants and we are signing a deed of transfer, so why are further Deeds of Covenants required?

Many lawyers agree with you that a Deed of Covenants is unnecessary, because all the covenants already appear in the lease, and you are bound by the lease.

But some leases say that a Deed of Covenants must be signed - so you would be breaching the lease if you don't sign one - even though it serves no additional legal purpose.

And even if the lease doesn't say a Deed of Covenants is required, but the freeholder/management company still request one, I guess you need to take a view on whether you want to delay things by having an argument about it.


Assuming the Deed of Covenants contains exactly the same covenants as appear in the lease, I don't believe there's any harm in signing it. But maybe check that with your solicitor.

and on the same subject, why then do we need to pay for a Deed of Covenant for the Managing Agent and a Deed of Covenant for the Landlord? Together with a Notice of Transfer for both parties too. It all seems like such repetition.

It sounds like you might have a tripartite lease - that's a lease between 3 parties: the freeholder, the management company, and the leaseholder.

The simple answer is probably that you must do those things because the lease says so. So your choices are:

• If you want to buy the lease - you must do those things
• If you don't want to do those things - don't buy the lease

A few people have argued that these kind of requirements (and an estimation of costs) should be included in the estate agents listing, so you know what the costs might be before you even make an offer.

fozziefozzie

eddddy said:

fozziefozzie said:

eddddy said:

fozziefozzie said:

Is it always a requirement to sign additional Deeds of Covenants? The Lease appears to contain all of the same or similar covenants and we are signing a deed of transfer, so why are further Deeds of Covenants required?

Many lawyers agree with you that a Deed of Covenants is unnecessary, because all the covenants already appear in the lease, and you are bound by the lease.

But some leases say that a Deed of Covenants must be signed - so you would be breaching the lease if you don't sign one - even though it serves no additional legal purpose.

And even if the lease doesn't say a Deed of Covenants is required, but the freeholder/management company still request one, I guess you need to take a view on whether you want to delay things by having an argument about it.


Assuming the Deed of Covenants contains exactly the same covenants as appear in the lease, I don't believe there's any harm in signing it. But maybe check that with your solicitor.

and on the same subject, why then do we need to pay for a Deed of Covenant for the Managing Agent and a Deed of Covenant for the Landlord? Together with a Notice of Transfer for both parties too. It all seems like such repetition.

It sounds like you might have a tripartite lease - that's a lease between 3 parties: the freeholder, the management company, and the leaseholder.

The simple answer is probably that you must do those things because the lease says so. So your choices are:

• If you want to buy the lease - you must do those things
• If you don't want to do those things - don't buy the lease

A few people have argued that these kind of requirements (and an estimation of costs) should be included in the estate agents listing, so you know what the costs might be before you even make an offer.

That is interesting, and on further examination, the Lease quotes both the landlord and the management company. I  understand that now. As you say, more transparency regarding the likely additional costs would be very helpful and make the process less stressful for the buyer. Each time we look at our bill a new cost has been added with very little explanation as to what it relates to. Our bill has doubled so far and we are nowhere near the end of the process. You are adding some clarity for us though so thank you for that

EssexHebridean

On the notices, when they are sent although it is essentially the same information in the body, they do get sent to as many entities as are required - so for example freeholder and managing agent. Those entities have their own processes for dealing with them (which is why sometimes their costs for that will also be different), some will just charge a nominal fee to cover the admin (some London Boroughs are really fair on this) while others see it as a chance to make some cash. 

Until the sale pack - or indeed packs, possibly - come through, the solicitor will not know what costs will be incurred for these items, that is why you are seeing them being added on seemingly as "extras" now - they were always due, but it's only now that the costs applicable to them are known, at a guess. 

fozziefozzie

EssexHebridean said:

On the notices, when they are sent although it is essentially the same information in the body, they do get sent to as many entities as are required - so for example freeholder and managing agent. Those entities have their own processes for dealing with them (which is why sometimes their costs for that will also be different), some will just charge a nominal fee to cover the admin (some London Boroughs are really fair on this) while others see it as a chance to make some cash. 

Until the sale pack - or indeed packs, possibly - come through, the solicitor will not know what costs will be incurred for these items, that is why you are seeing them being added on seemingly as "extras" now - they were always due, but it's only now that the costs applicable to them are known, at a guess. 

I understand that extra costs are to be incurred but at the moment for instance we have 5 charges on our bill for issuing the Deed of Covenant. When we asked our solicitor what each is, one is the Managing Agent (who we believe is acting on behalf of the Management Co), one is the solicitor of the Management Co, and 2 are the landlord, whose name is Jones c/o Smith, but apparently we need a covenant for both Jones & Smith. The last one is our solicitor, who instead of agreeing to the Managing Agent's fee of £300, offered to produce their own at a cost of £250 + £190 for the Managing Agent to store it.