We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Share of freehold bought without consent of freeholder?
Comments
-
If your Declaration of Trust with A says that you will add B to the Freehold at a premium agreed between you and A, you cannot just refuse to do this because you don't like or trust B. You both have to follow the terms of the Declaration of Trust. Hopefully this sets out how the premium is to be decided in the event that you cannot agree?
A obviously cannot add B to the freehold unilaterally either. Both of you will need to consent. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they are actually trying to do this.
Honestly, it sounds like a shared freehold set up is not working for any of you and you would likely be wise to pay a management company to take over the management of the building. It may cost you all a bit more in fees but at least it would reduce the personal animosity between you over who should be doing what.0 -
If any of the flats is mortgaged they aren't going to be able to make any legal changes without the permission of the lenders concerned.I am a mortgage broker. You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice. Please do not send PMs asking for one-to-one-advice, or representation.1
-
loubel said:If your Declaration of Trust with A says that you will add B to the Freehold at a premium agreed between you and A, you cannot just refuse to do this because you don't like or trust B. You both have to follow the terms of the Declaration of Trust. Hopefully this sets out how the premium is to be decided in the event that you cannot agree?
A obviously cannot add B to the freehold unilaterally either. Both of you will need to consent. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they are actually trying to do this.
Honestly, it sounds like a shared freehold set up is not working for any of you and you would likely be wise to pay a management company to take over the management of the building. It may cost you all a bit more in fees but at least it would reduce the personal animosity between you over who should be doing what.
In fact I did agree to the freehold buy in with B, but A changed story and demanded to have more share of the premium than agreed at the last minutes, and when I didn't accept, he said the transaction would be over if I didn't accept. So it didn't happen. Then A came back to me and said if I would be happy to do lease extension instead. So we started the transaction. But B did not act as agreed so it did not happen. Why can't people just stick to agreements - it should not be so complicated.
I agree that A obviously cannot add B to the freehold like this - my argument is that what he is actually doing is breaching the clause that let us sell the share to B at an agreed premium. If a share is to be sold, it has to be sold in the way set out in the DoT. So A (and also B ) has taken my right to sell it as set out in the DoT, and also taken my right to sell the flat with a benefit of potential income from selling a share, if the sales had not happen by that time. I think it could be argued that it is a deliverate act to remove me from the sales and benefit A.
I contacted my old lawyer and he advised me to seek a legal advice promptly. He said he could not do this as he had presented both A and myself so it woud be conflict of interest.
still no responses from A or B regarding my question about their freehold company.0 -
Does the Declaration of Trust say what should happen in the event of a dispute?0
-
kingstreet said:If any of the flats is mortgaged they aren't going to be able to make any legal changes without the permission of the lenders concerned.0
-
loubel said:Does the Declaration of Trust say what should happen in the event of a dispute?
I think that's why they are not responding.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards