retrospective notice of assignment

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    retrospective notice of assignment

    bit of an oddity, my freeholder has come back (this was brought to light by change of bank account by new owner) that they don't have a notice of assignement... for a transaction back in 2012. Me (my flat) to the new owner.

    Everything else is in place and I am on good terms with the new owner. Tried to contact the original conveyancer but they liquidated 5 years ago.

    The new freeholder has been sent a retrospective (had to contact Land Regisatry for the details which they helpfully provided of dates) notice of assignement drafted firstly by me then the new owner and the fee/cheque which they have cashed, but they are now saying it must be on solicitor letter headed paper for them to accept it/update their records.

    But I cannot find a solicitor who will do just this bit, they seem to want to do the whole conveyancing or nothing. This concerns me that there is something more amiss than I thought.

    I really don't know how to approach this, I mistakenly assumed it would be straightforward, there is no mortage or finance to consider and all fees have been paid.

    Have I missed something really obvious? Any recommendations?

    Thank you

    Has the transfer into new owner's name been completed by Land Registry ?

    If yes. You could send a copy of the property title issued by Land Registry.


      yes its all 'proper' with land registry, to the point that the new owner has even changed her own contact details (following divorce).

      Even with the property title (surely they must also be aware of this) they seem unwilling to budge without a notice of assignment.

      I think its being a bit 'difficult' at this stage given whats what, they know who is who and both parties have spoken to them.... but thats why I am equally concerned I might have missed something more obvious. (and I don't want to undermine the importance of a proper notice but in this case its a one off)

      Of course they are in the position they can stipulate what they want. Any solicitors out there who might be able to help ?


        "but they are now saying it must be on solicitor letter headed paper for them to accept it/update their records"

        Unless the wording of the lease requires this (which is highly unlikely) that is utter nonsense.


          yes a lease check agrees... but not in a position to challenge.

          nothing seems to be springing up as a bigger problem I simply didn't see so I think its just a case of contacting as many solicitors as possible until one says "yes we'll send the letter/notice)

          I double checked land registry documents again which I happen to have to hand (change of address following divorce) and it clearly shows the 'original' transfer went through 8 years ago in 2011 and the next entry is few months ago change of address. Theres nothing amiss bar the freeholders records are not in line but I'll probably never know why.

          There are a few solicitors in the directory I will try those.

          Thank you for your reply as well (to all) appreciate the time to help


            Sorry but I am not following you. Why are you not in a position to challenge?

            The obligation to serve the notice is on the tenant. You are not the tenant.

            There is no legal requirement that the notice should be served by a solictor.


              what I meant was I was the original leaseholder, then there is new leaseholder. New leaseholder is stuck as no notice of transfer is acknowledged by the freeholder (unknown as to why)

              I am trying to assist her with this so my wording may have added to confusion but at the end of the day the freeholder is insisting the notice is sent from a solicitor on headed paper. I can't see anything in the lease that says this must be so, like you said its nonsense BUT they are the freeholder and refuse to update any records unless current leaseholder complies with their stipulation so what choice is left. Comply or it isn't done.

              I don't see how this can be challenged, they have had notice sent by the new leaseholder but they won't accept this. I really don't know why nor what else can be done. My first concern was there must be more to this than meets the eye.

              My involvement is I act as the current leaseholders agent now so I am trying to help but hitting a wall.


                You say the landlord is new. Did the previous landlord address demands and correspondence to the present tenant?

                Please quote in full the lease clause requiring notice of assignment.

                Are you dealing with an agent or the landlord direct?

                Has the landlord/agent indicated why they think the notice must be on solicitor's headed notepaper?


                  I'm a bit confused with the terminology, leaseholders/freeholder but you mention landlord and tenant so I assume landlord is freeholder and tenant in this case is the leaseholder.

                  I am and always have been on good terms with new leaseholder so all correspondence would have been exchanged. Correspondence continued to come through to me and I was/do act as her agent. All this time correspondence continued to come through to me (acting as her agent) which obviously in itself looking back would have hightlighted the problem but at the time I didn't really think about it.

                  There has been no indication why it must be on letterheaded paper.

                  The lease clause (quite an old version I have to hand) says notify in writing but for good measure I think I will ask Land registry for another copy.

                  I am still trying to read between the lines here to understand why a notice of assignement in writing has not been sufficient but maybe an updated lease will help (my copy is old and predates the new freeholder)


                    I wanted to establish whether the former landlord had dealt with the tenant impliedly if not expressly acknowedging she was tenant. It seems that that may not be the case. The point is not strictly relevant, but if it is the case insisting on notice after 8 years is a bit of a nonsense.

                    Subject to your confirming that the lease clause has nothing in it which requires the notice to be served by a solicitor and/or to be on headed notepaper and is otherwise standard, what is the point is that the notice has been served (if somewhat late) and that no further notice is needed. Like you I am puzzled why it is asserted that the notice has to be on solicitor's headed notepaper. Either it is ignorance or they think they have some point which they are keeping to themselves.

                    Write to them and say that you have taken legal advice and been informed that there is no need for the notice to be given by a solicitor and/or to be on headed notepaper and accordingly the notice you have given is perfectly valid.


                      a rather late reply but its taken this long to get over the line.
                      I checked others leases obtained from Land Registry and they were all the same, notice only specified in writing, nothing else.
                      In between they wrote asking again for the notice to be sent (via solicitor) or would be in breach of the lease !.

                      Sent a copy of the title document and a letter explaining nothing more than in writing was required, it was "perfectly valid" notice of assignment and also that had they dealt with the tenant impliedly even if not expressly acknowledged she was tenant. Of course being told you are in breach of lease is a paradox as you can only be in breach if acknowledged to be the tenant in the first place.

                      But all well in the end, just had a call, they have looked closely at it and decided to update accordingly. Its great that we can all move on now.

                      Thank you for your assistance with this Lawcruncher, I was a bit lost with it and your steer was invaluable to help clear a path through this.

                      best regards :-)


                      Latest Activity