Removal from freehold

Polish72

Some advice please.

My now ex-wife and I bought a property a number of years ago whilst married. It was a maisonette within a block of four and as such was both a leasehold and freehold. After getting divorced, I was removed from the deeds and the leasehold but the bank have constantly refused to remove me from the freehold, stating they "don't have to". Doing this myself would, according to the bank, cost around £800. This could impact my ability to buy a house in the future (I'm currently renting) let alone the fact that any time one of the current freeholders sell up or need all freeholders permissions etc, I get requests to sign TR1 and ID1 forms. 

Can anyone please advise me if it is correct that it would cost £800 and whether there is another way to remove myself.

TIA

user1977

Sorry, what does the bank (whose bank?) have to do with whether you're on the title to the freehold?

Polish72

Thank you for replying. The bank in question is the bank who we had the joint mortgage with and who my ex-wife currently continues to have her mortgage with. They removed me from the leasehold but not the freehold and as I'm not very clued up on these processes, have no idea how to have my name removed from the freehold. Apologies if my question seems obvious or naive. Regards.

user1977

The title is transferred by you to your ex, it isn't the bank who "removes" you, but if there's a mortgage the bank would need to consent to it. But given the main value of the bank's security would have been in the leasehold, it doesn't make any sense that the bank would consent to the leasehold being transferred but not the freehold. Are you saying they were asked to consent to both at the time and refused, or is it perhaps more likely that everybody forgot the freehold was involved?

eddddy

Polish72 said:

My now ex-wife and I bought a property a number of years ago whilst married. It was a maisonette within a block of four and as such was both a leasehold and freehold. 

When you refer to 'the freehold', can you clarify what exactly you and your wife own?

Assuming the 4 maisonettes are arranged as 2 on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor - there are 3 main possibilities:

• 1) You and your wife jointly own the freehold of the whole block which contains the 4 flats?

• 2) The block is split into 2 'buildings' each containing 2 maisonettes - so you and your wife jointly own the freehold of one of the buildings which contains 2 flats

• 3) You and your wife jointly own a 'share of the freehold' of the building/block

Option 3 would be the most common. But in that case, you and your wife would jointly own the freehold with other flat owners - either directly, or as shareholders in company (where the company owns the freehold).

poseidon1

eddddy said:

Polish72 said:

My now ex-wife and I bought a property a number of years ago whilst married. It was a maisonette within a block of four and as such was both a leasehold and freehold. 

When you refer to 'the freehold', can you clarify what exactly you and your wife own?

Assuming the 4 maisonettes are arranged as 2 on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor - there are 3 main possibilities:

• 1) You and your wife jointly own the freehold of the whole block which contains the 4 flats?

• 2) The block is split into 2 'buildings' each containing 2 maisonettes - so you and your wife jointly own the freehold of one of the buildings which contains 2 flats

• 3) You and your wife jointly own a 'share of the freehold' of the building/block

Option 3 would be the most common. But in that case, you and your wife would jointly own the freehold with other flat owners - either directly, or as shareholders in company (where the company owns the freehold).

I suspect it is option 3 ( no intervening company), since a bank could only hold a legal charge on a leasehold interest ( alone) where a seperate and distinct freehold reversion company holds the freehold title ( can't have multiple lenders purporting to have  legal charges over shares in a shell company).

Sounds to me the lawyer who handled the financial split arising from the divorce failed  or simply overlooked  dealing with the OP's Freehold interest,  which had minimal value compared to underlying leasehold interest which was transferred  to the ex wife outright.

This is an irritating issue for the OP.

He could try and  handle the transfer of the Freehold himself, but since the bank still has both the freehold and leasehold interests as security for their charge they are effectively holding him hostage by not releasing him from the Freehold aspect of their charge without an extortionate fee. Difficult to see what he can now do to avoid this charge other than a long drawn out complaint to the banking ombudsman, which may ultimately  get him nowhere.

Maybe one of those situations where the OP has no other option but to pay if he wants to quickly cut this final fiscal cord linking him to his ex.

SDLT_Geek

Polish72 said:

Some advice please.

My now ex-wife and I bought a property a number of years ago whilst married. It was a maisonette within a block of four and as such was both a leasehold and freehold. After getting divorced, I was removed from the deeds and the leasehold but the bank have constantly refused to remove me from the freehold, stating they "don't have to". Doing this myself would, according to the bank, cost around £800. This could impact my ability to buy a house in the future (I'm currently renting) let alone the fact that any time one of the current freeholders sell up or need all freeholders permissions etc, I get requests to sign TR1 and ID1 forms. 

Can anyone please advise me if it is correct that it would cost £800 and whether there is another way to remove myself.

TIA

It seems to me unlikely that the Bank have a charge on the freehold, so getting you taken off the freehold title is "nothing to do with them".

A practical solution might be that next time another maisonette is sold, you say you are happy to sign the transfer of the freehold, but only if the TR1 is amended so that you are a transferor, but not a transferee.  That way you should drop off the title.

eddddy

SDLT_Geek said:

A practical solution might be that next time another maisonette is sold, you say you are happy to sign the transfer of the freehold, but only if the TR1 is amended so that you are a transferor, but not a transferee.  That way you should drop off the title.

Yep - except that a freehold property can only have 4 registered owners, and the OP says there are 4 maisonettes in the block.

So in an example like this, typically just one owner from each maisonette would be listed as a registered owner - but the OP seems to be saying that both he and his wife are registered owners. (That would mean that at least one of the other maisonette owners would be left out.)


Even if there were only 2 maisonettes in the freehold property - you'd probably still only register 1 owner from each maisonette.

Because if you registered 2 per maisonette - then at some point, if one of the maisonettes is sold to a sole purchaser, they'd have nobody to put forward as their second joint freehold owner.