retrospective notice of assignment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    retrospective notice of assignment

    Hi,
    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

    #2
    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.

    Comment


      #3
      Hi,
      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 ?

      Comment


        #4
        "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.

        Comment


          #5
          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

          Comment


            #6
            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.

            Comment


              #7
              hi,
              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.

              Comment


                #8
                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?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Hi,
                  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)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Hi,
                      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 :-)

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Reply to Freehold enfranchisement
                        by shaltout
                        Thanks, LIP,

                        I may agree with you if developers are well known, creditworthy and ready to provide answers to basic due diligence questions.

                        There is also the unknown risks one could be exposed to which are endless.

                        I'm actually actively thinking of selling the...
                        23-02-2020, 13:22 PM
                      • Freehold enfranchisement
                        by shaltout
                        I bought the leasehold of an ex-council flat in a block of 12 units, my lease term has 95 years remaining.

                        I and the other leaseholders have been approached by an investor/ developer to arrange to buy the freehold of the block from the council on behalf of the leaseholders, pay legal fees,...
                        21-02-2020, 14:53 PM
                      • Original Lease Unavailable
                        by wolvaughan
                        I’m currently selling a shared ownership property, the buyer is purchasing the whole flat and I’ll be staircasing to 100% on the day of sale.

                        The Buyer wants an original copy of my lease, nobody has one but the Land Registry does have a copy with a red lined title plan.
                        ...
                        03-02-2020, 12:29 PM
                      • Reply to Original Lease Unavailable
                        by Lawcruncher
                        What was dematerialised was the register. The register, both before and after dematerialisation, is the title to the property. The original documents cannot, and never could, be used to prove title, but that does not mean they cannot be produced in evidence in a case which does not involve proving title....
                        23-02-2020, 08:54 AM
                      • Reply to selling of property question
                        by Protoknight25
                        Provided your name is on the title register has an owner (registered proprietor) any sale of the property would need your involvement.

                        The property belongs to you (in part) and you need to sign any papers transferring the property. Any solicitor buying or selling such property, would...
                        23-02-2020, 08:20 AM
                      • selling of property question
                        by Bill31
                        If a sibling was to sell a property and my names was on the deeds, can they sell it without me knowing?
                        or would the solicitor pick up on this and advise them another person is on the deeds?
                        26-11-2019, 07:07 AM
                      • Where does one find a solicitor that can provide Independant Legal Advice?
                        by beccajohnson
                        I am undergoing the remortgage of a property purchased in a company name

                        As part of the process the solicitor has informed me that the lender wants me to obtain 'Independant legal advice' from another solicitor. The 'independant solicitor would have to sign off on a related document too....
                        31-01-2020, 14:08 PM
                      • Reply to Where does one find a solicitor that can provide Independant Legal Advice?
                        by Protoknight25
                        Reason a lot of them do not like offering independent legal advice, as it is more liability than a consultation, but far less profitable than a full transaction.

                        I know a chap in central London you can do it for £400 plus VAT....
                        23-02-2020, 08:16 AM
                      • Reply to Original Lease Unavailable
                        by Protoknight25
                        You get this sometimes with some people.

                        Since dematerialisation in 2002, the actual hardcopy papers are useful but not legally binding. The legal lease is whatever HM Land Registry has stored.

                        If the lease is registered at HM land registry, that’ll be fine....
                        23-02-2020, 08:14 AM
                      • Reply to Freehold enfranchisement
                        by LJP
                        Whilst I agree that the long term costs of helping the developer to acquire the freehold are likely to far outweigh the benefit of the £5k sweetener being offered now, is the developer actually looking to acquire the freehold for itself?

                        Shaltout refers in post 1 to an undertaking to 'sell...
                        22-02-2020, 22:21 PM
                      Working...
                      X