Legal Costs for a co-freeholder

Hach

Hi, I am looking for some knowledgeable people to advise me.

I own a 50% share of freehold flat and my neighbour owns the other 50% and they are in the process of selling. We don’t have a good relationship with our neighbour so I want them to move quickly, I spoke to my solicitor who I had used to buy my property about some issues with them, installing new windows, laminate flooring etc without my written consent when they told us they were selling. My solicitor suggested to talk to the litigation team as when they sell they may have issues doing so. Whilst waiting for a response from the litigation team, they sold their property and are now using our solicitor.

I have now been asked to sign the LEP1 form, which they have filled in. I had a look through it and there are issues with what they filled in, that I previously mentioned to our solicitor. I contacted our solicitor but they cant represent us now because they are working for our neighbour and told us to get an independent solicitor, what a mess, this was what I wanted to avoid, anyway, I got a quote for legal advice which costs around £1200 which I don’t really want to pay for. My question is, can I ask my neighbour to pay for my legal costs?

Many thanks for your time.

eddddy

If you want, you can say to your neighbour that you won't sign the LPE1 form without taking advice from a solicitor, and you will only take legal advice if your neighbour pays the £1200 legal fee to you in advance.

But that might or might not cause the sale to fall through - the buyer might or might not choose to proceed with only one signature on the LPE1. (But this dispute won't do much for your relationship with your neighbour.)

Alternatively, you are free to negotiate some other (compromise) arrangement with your neighbour, if you want.

There might also be difficulties with transferring the share of the freehold to the buyer, if you refuse to cooperate.


What are the issues with their laminate flooring and new windows? Are they causing you a problem?

Hach

eddddy said:

If you want, you can say to your neighbour that you won't sign the LPE1 form without taking advice from a solicitor, and you will only take legal advice if your neighbour pays the £1200 legal fee to you in advance.

But that might or might not cause the sale to fall through - the buyer might or might not choose to proceed with only one signature on the LPE1. (But this dispute won't do much for your relationship with your neighbour.)

Alternatively, you are free to negotiate some other (compromise) arrangement with your neighbour, if you want.

There might also be difficulties with transferring the share of the freehold to the buyer, if you refuse to cooperate.


What are the issues with their laminate flooring and new windows? Are they causing you a problem?

Thank you for your reply.
With regards to the laminate floor, noise has increased and it does state in the lease not to use it.

With the windows, I dont think there are any problems at the moment. According to my solicitor, it's a breach of the lease and there is a section about it on the LPE1 form. Can i just sign it, even if I acknowlege that they had breached the lease, just because I want them to move ASAP, or do I need to be honest about it. Like you said, the buyer might be ok without my signature so I could just tell my neighbours' solicitor that I need to return the form without it being signed. I just worry about the concequence if I lie on the form.

Thank you

gm0

The LPE is the hostage. 

What is it about the windows as they now are which is a live problem.  Failing to agree it with you isn't a live problem. It's now a historic one.  There are new windows.  Either they are suitable enough to stay (and after protracted dispute and lawyering up and a load of cost - would be allowed to stay). Or they aren't - they breach a planning or listed building condition.  Legally your solicitor thinks failure to ask is a lease breach. Opinion.  May be technically true.  Yet many leases are broken all the time. And the result is either - a letter from freehold/agent to lessee.  Or for big examples - an attempt in court for forfeiture (ridiculous usually - for pet breaches or small things like this failure to ask). Forgivenses not permission scenario and a "sorry oops will do better" and a big fat nothing is the most likely outcome apart from legal costs and bad feeling and wasting the courts time.  Retrospective approval.  You leave court......and you sit down to discuss approving it. Or what exactly?  Forfeiture being extemely unlikely in a relatively uncontroversial case like this.  Absent meaningful structural damage to the freehold building or your demised area. If they did their own windows at their own cost (demised windows, but missed freeholder permission for works).  It is hard to see what the problem worth pursuing now is.  

Also have you both ever agreed a "standard" for what replacement windows should be.  

And at this point to try and set one - it's a 50:50 and whatever adjudication process your setup affords.  As they clearly will believe that what they did was fine and should be in the standard.  Absent a listed building or planning breach (PP conditions on external distance to wall and any glazing features - they probably are).  Provided their installer did the fire access stuff to spec.

Hach said:

eddddy said:

If you want, you can say to your neighbour that you won't sign the LPE1 form without taking advice from a solicitor, and you will only take legal advice if your neighbour pays the £1200 legal fee to you in advance.

But that might or might not cause the sale to fall through - the buyer might or might not choose to proceed with only one signature on the LPE1. (But this dispute won't do much for your relationship with your neighbour.)

Alternatively, you are free to negotiate some other (compromise) arrangement with your neighbour, if you want.

There might also be difficulties with transferring the share of the freehold to the buyer, if you refuse to cooperate.


What are the issues with their laminate flooring and new windows? Are they causing you a problem?

Thank you for your reply.
With regards to the laminate floor, noise has increased and it does state in the lease not to use it.

With the windows, I dont think there are any problems at the moment. According to my solicitor, it's a breach of the lease and there is a section about it on the LPE1 form. Can i just sign it, even if I acknowlege that they had breached the lease, just because I want them to move ASAP, or do I need to be honest about it. Like you said, the buyer might be ok without my signature so I could just tell my neighbours' solicitor that I need to return the form without it being signed. I just worry about the concequence if I lie on the form.

Thank you

Then the lease can in theory be used to enforce no hard floors.  Noise nuisance, cover them up please.  To existing or new owner.  You CAN send a letter to "the freeholder" (both of you) - now - as the infringed leaseholder - complaining about this breach.  What they do (nothing) - and whether they disclose it - is up to them.  But you sent it.  And can prove that later.  They will not like that existing as a document of record. 

And if they disclose it drawing attention to it being a live issue - it could blow up sale and departure.  And if they don't disclose.  And you provide it as proof later.  Then it will get into shades of grey about changes to the disclosure and misleading seller answers.   But the lease on its face says "no hard floors".  So them wiggling through seller disclosure without getting into a liability discussion impeding departure may be possible for them. Some non-answer pointing to buyers own checks and the lease. (Which has the answer in it - albeit the flat doesn't match).  Key objective is no loss of enforcement position to move on this issue for you should you wish. 

The letter arriving as a new dispute after seller disclosure but before exchange might be more painful for them. As it gets into "notifiable change" spaces.  Buyer would naturally - pre-exchange take a view on soft recovering costs being necessary to remedy the breach.  New laminate has zero value. And knock most of that new cost off the price.  Nobody sane would ask seller (forced) to choose carpets and do it - cheapest and nastiest solution incoming.

I would ask my lawyer when reviewing the LPE1 whether the lessee breach complaint letter makes any legal difference to you later. Rather than just being a pointless stick of dynamite dropped in the sales pond.  To no real benefit.  In which case - don't send it. Let them go. Just use the lease - later - on the new owner.

You and new lessee (also new freeholder) meet and agree that - complaint received (from you as lessee) a) the lease indeed says x.  b) so it's a problem And c) the other lessee (them) is told to remody. Enforcement action to be taken if soft coverings don't go down.   

The other leaseholder may well smile and say yes sure - let's send a letter to the lessee (me) saying naughty naughty.  Which as lessee I will consider (indefinitely being the subtext). And as the other 50% freeholder - I don't support legal action for forfeiture and its costs. So it is your move fellow freeholder.   First on our 50:50 vote about what action to take.  And our neighbour dispute.  And the costs.  And anything else you might ever want being taken hostage in return.  What next.

It depends on the level of nuisance based on their use - and their neighbourliness and how they felt about the floors in decision to buy. 

Of course their buying conveyancing solicitor should point out the lease terms to them as part of due diligence.  So they should not be able to claim a surprise - even if the LPE1 does not make this same point - again.  Your solicitor can guide you on whether you need to be painful on the freeholder document - given it is in the lease.  And if the letter vs no-letter options make any difference at all.  I suspect not really. But you need legal not lay opinion on that.

Johnsonsamith

Wow, reading his other post from the author… this guy honestly sounds like a nightmare. The windows aren’t a breach, hard flooring is rarely a winning case (maybe just ask your neighbour put down some rugs if it bothers you —just add a note to the LPE1 requesting rugs to minimise noise), and you literally live upstairs as from your “flooded his bathroom don’t want to take responsibility” post — some of what you are complaining about is just ridiculous.

At this point, you are basically harassing your neighbours, which could definitely be used against you. As a freehold co-owner, you have a duty to sign the TR1, and any delays that cost the other owner money — lost buyer, solicitor fees, lower offer — could potentially be claimed back. Also, the neighbour is not obliged to pay for your legal advice. Those two forms are standard when selling in that scenario. 

Honestly, this whole situation sounds like a case your neighbours could win if it went legal.

eddddy

 @Johnsonsamith I'm not siding with the OP or his joint freeholder, but some of what you say is factually incorrect...

Johnsonsamith said:

As a freehold co-owner, you have a duty to sign the TR1, and any delays that cost the other owner money — lost buyer, solicitor fees, lower offer — could potentially be claimed back. 

Why do you say that? 

Unless the OP has signed a deed with the other joint freeholder agreeing to ,sign a TR1, or made some other type of contractual agreement with the joint freeholder. I can't see a reason why the OP is obliged to sign the TR1.

Johnsonsamith said:

Also, the neighbour is not obliged to pay for your legal advice. 

That's correct. And the OP isn't obliged to sign the LPE1.

So the OP is free to say "I'll only sign the LPE1 if you pay for my legal advice first."

Johnsonsamith said:

The windows aren’t a breach

How do you know? Have you read the OPs lease and inspected the windows?

Johnsonsamith said:

hard flooring is rarely a winning case (maybe just ask your neighbour put down some rugs if it bothers you —just add a note to the LPE1 requesting rugs to minimise noise)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "winning case".

If the lease says fitted carpets must be laid... if they are not laid, it's a breach of lease. So again, it's a case of looking at the wording of the lease.


Typically, a buyer's solicitor would advise a buyer not to proceed while there are unresolved breaches of the lease.

Johnsonsamith

eddddy said:

 @Johnsonsamith I'm not siding with the OP or his joint freeholder, but some of what you say is factually incorrect...

Johnsonsamith said:

As a freehold co-owner, you have a duty to sign the TR1, and any delays that cost the other owner money — lost buyer, solicitor fees, lower offer — could potentially be claimed back. 

Why do you say that? 

Unless the OP has signed a deed with the other joint freeholder agreeing to ,sign a TR1, or made some other type of contractual agreement with the joint freeholder. I can't see a reason why the OP is obliged to sign the TR1.

Johnsonsamith said:

Also, the neighbour is not obliged to pay for your legal advice. 

That's correct. And the OP isn't obliged to sign the LPE1.

So the OP is free to say "I'll only sign the LPE1 if you pay for my legal advice first."

Johnsonsamith said:

The windows aren’t a breach

How do you know? Have you read the OPs lease and inspected the windows?

Johnsonsamith said:

hard flooring is rarely a winning case (maybe just ask your neighbour put down some rugs if it bothers you —just add a note to the LPE1 requesting rugs to minimise noise)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "winning case".

If the lease says fitted carpets must be laid... if they are not laid, it's a breach of lease. So again, it's a case of looking at the wording of the lease.


Typically, a buyer's solicitor would advise a buyer not to proceed while there are unresolved breaches of the lease.

Co-freeholders don’t need a separate contract. The duty to cooperate comes from the fact they’re co-owners — unreasonably refusing to sign can be treated as obstruction and financial losses can be claimed. You can’t block someone’s sale just because you’re awkward.

eddddy

Johnsonsamith said:

Co-freeholders don’t need a separate contract. The duty to cooperate comes from the fact they’re co-owners — unreasonably refusing to sign can be treated as obstruction and financial losses can be claimed. You can’t block someone’s sale just because you’re awkward.

Which legislation or law states that?

(There are considerations relating to being 'Tenants in Common' and/or applying for a court order to force a sale using the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act. But not in the way you describe.)

Johnsonsamith

eddddy said:

Johnsonsamith said:

Co-freeholders don’t need a separate contract. The duty to cooperate comes from the fact they’re co-owners — unreasonably refusing to sign can be treated as obstruction and financial losses can be claimed. You can’t block someone’s sale just because you’re awkward.

Which legislation or law states that?

(There are considerations relating to being 'Tenants in Common' and/or applying for a court order to force a sale using the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act. But not in the way you describe.)

Where two names appear on the freehold title, they hold that title as trustees by operation of law. This is an automatic Trust of Land under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and the Land Registration Act 2002, even if no separate trust deed exists.

Consent from the co-freeholder isn’t required for the sale — only cooperation to sign the freehold transfer. If a co-trustee refuses, the court may order the transfer or appoint a replacement under TOLATA 1996.