Nasty letter from freeholder of retirement housing

waribai

(And/or it's also possible that if this results from another leaseholder's complaint, that leaseholder is indemnifying the freeholder's legal costs - which might make legal action less likely - which might be good for the OP.)

Thanks for the reply. Can you just clarify the last part above in layman's terms? Thank you!

eddddy

waribai said:

(And/or it's also possible that if this results from another leaseholder's complaint, that leaseholder is indemnifying the freeholder's legal costs - which might make legal action less likely - which might be good for the OP.)

Thanks for the reply. Can you just clarify the last part above in layman's terms? Thank you!

Typically, all the leases for all the flats in the block will be identical.

Typically, a lease will have to following covenant by the freeholder (in simplified terms)...

• If leaseholder B complains to the Freeholder that Leaseholder A  is breaching the lease, the Freeholder promises that they will take enforcement action against Leaseholder A, to stop the breach.

• But if it turns out that the Freeholder can't get their legal costs back any other way - Leaseholder B has to cover the Freeholder's legal costs

in even simpler terms...

• The freeholder would be saying to Leaseholder B "Based on your complaint, we're happy to take Leaseholder A to court for breaching their lease, but if we lose, and we can't get our legal costs back any other way - you'll have to pay our legal costs"

That risk might be enough to make Leaseholder B withdraw the complaint about Leaseholder A.

Flugelhorn

eddddy said:

• If leaseholder A complains to the Freeholder that Leaseholder B is breaching the lease, the Freeholder promises that they will take enforcement action against Leaseholder A, to stop the breach.

• 
  

do you mean Leaseholder B complains to the freeholder that Leaseholder A is breaching the Lease?

eddddy

Flugelhorn said:

eddddy said:

• If leaseholder A complains to the Freeholder that Leaseholder B is breaching the lease, the Freeholder promises that they will take enforcement action against Leaseholder A, to stop the breach.

• 
  

do you mean Leaseholder B complains to the freeholder that Leaseholder A is breaching the Lease?

Yep - I think so. I've corrected the post.

waribai

Ok. I think I've understood it. Thanks. My guess is that they would rather make a fast buck with her moving out and any associated fees, resell etc. 

NameUnavailable

May it be that the solicitor acting for the purchaser raised a query about the age issue during the purchase and it was agreed that the sale could continue?

Otherwise surely the management company are at fault here for not doing their due dilligence during the sale of the flat? (although in theory they may have thought the purchaser was buying for someone else to live there).

If there is a problem then one of the solicitors must surely be at fault here and a professional indemnity claim needs to be made!

Flugelhorn

Has your friend managed to speak to her solicitor yet or got any advice @waribai ?

ThisIsWeird

waribai said:

Thanks for all the advice. Yes. She is still waiting for contact from the purchasing solicitor. We are though in the meantime contacting a leasehold specialist solicitor for some pro bono independent advice (recommended by a parliamentary campaigner on leasehold). My strong suspicion is that the freeholder is hoping for her to panic and ask for their assistance. They would then advise her to put it on the market. They will then come to the 'rescue' with a very low offer to ameliorate the situation. Once she has moved out they will then sell it an increased price on the open market or possibly rent it out. Who knows?
I am hoping that as they are a slightly dodgy outfit anyway, they will be averse to trying to go down the legal route especially if she communicates with them via legal channels only and makes it clear that it is not her living there that is in breach of the terms but the transfer that was a breach.

I think it's best to keep your suspicions separate, at least until you know more; certainly not let it colour the issue in any way until then.
It is just as likely that the FH/ManCo is simply spineless and incompetent, and are reacting in a volatile and clumsy manner to their late realisation of this breach, or possibly to a complaint by another Leaseholder; they worry that they can be held liable for this seeming error, so are all guns blazing to try and intimidate and coerce your friend into selling, and hence resolving the issue for them. And, it's kind of working - your friend is understandably very concerned, even tho' legal professionals - on both sides - should have ensured this couldn't have occurred (and, I'd suggest, would be liable for any losses if it progresses). But that is pure assumption too.
For the FH to suggest, in writing, that this seeming breach is 'unlawful', sets their incompetent tone, and I suspect won't serve them well should this matter progress; it comes across to me as intentionally coercive, especially as it's inaccurate. Crude and incompetent at best.
I don't blame your friend for seeking specialist advice, but really this should be landed squarely on her conveyancing solicitor's lap in the first instance. I know they are on holiday, but don't let her worry about timings - they will (should) sort this on their return.
Can you confirm - does she have LegProt? This could be important if more specialist advice is required.
Meanwhile, ask her to gather and go through all the documents regarding the purchase, and that includes the sales particulars. If she was informed by the Estate Agent, for example, that this was 'for the over-60s', then the EA was presumably given that info from someone, and didn't just make it up. So where did that info come from? The vendor? 
She should also have the Sellers' Pack -TA6; should this include info on what is a (very) significant and restrictive covenant? (No idea).
It's interesting that there is seemingly no insistence that the occupants are actually 'retired', but only above a certain age? In which case, the fact she still goes off to work shouldn't be an issue? I'd have thought being 'retired' rather than 'of a certain age' would be the more significant matter to other residents?!
Is there a nuclear option of her making a complaint about all the other young folk in this block; "are you going to apply the same conditions to them, or are you discriminating against me 'cos I is working?"

Mil moved into a retirement village around 2 years ago, and the entry process was pretty comprehensive, including a 'cognition' interview, and checks on her physical capacity - and, yes, age. Interestingly, they have since lowered the min age requirement down to, I think, 55 or 60, in order to attract more folk, so the ManCo clearly has that right (tho' it initially applied to some new builds). Sadly, the house she bought had to be vacated by the bereaved partner of the previous owner, as he was - then - too young to qualify.

waribai

Thanks for the concern. Just as an update, we were kindly put in touch with a specialist on leasehold by the National Leasehold Campaign. Without going into details just yet, it seems the situation is salvageable but may take some time. The advert said over 60s but that has long since disappeared and her conveyancing solicitor has gone very quiet! The specialist is very helpful and knowlegable and seems keen to get this resolved at the conveyancing solicitor's expense!

Herzlos

If it was on rightmove, then you should be able to recover the original listing from https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices.html