Nil premium for lease extension when shares in freehold company also owned?

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

    Nil premium for lease extension when shares in freehold company also owned?

    My parents own a lease of a flat and shares in the company that owns the freehold. The property was built, freehold established and 99 year leases granted about 55 years ago; the freehold was bought by the lessees about 40 years ago; most of the leases in the block were extended to 999 year leases for nil premium about 25 years ago, a few more were extended during the next 12 years again for nil premium; only two short leases were not extended, we don't know why. My parents bought one of these short leases (plus the shares) about 20 years ago, that is a couple of years before the last lease extension. They lost track of the lease situation, are now elderly and infirm, would like to sell and have belatedly realised they have a short lease so would like to extend the lease to 999 years like the other leases. Should they have the right to be treated in the same way as the other leaseholders/shareholders, i.e. to extend their lease for nil premium?

    #2
    My gut reaction is to say yes with an ex gratis token amount in recognition of taking It An additional 40 years later. Seems fair, but not a legally researched suggestion.

    Comment


      #3
      Yes.
      My mother was in a similar situation having somehow not gained her 999 year lease when she became a shareholder in the freehold company. After she died we pressed the freehold company to issue the correct 999 year lease for no charge and they did. Our argument was along the lines of if every other shareholder gave themselves a free 999 year lease then she should have had one too!

      Comment


        #4
        Thanks, Tipper. Sounds like your mother's situation was very similar to my parents'. Did you have to take legal advice or you just appealed to the directors' morals?

        Comment


          #5
          Sorry I can't remember the details now but I know it took considerable badgering of the freehold company and long waits for directors' meetings to get it sorted out. I think it was the company secretary that sorted it out in the end. However they issued a variation to the lease rather than a new lease, I presume this was cheaper and finally quicker for them.
          The flat sold later with no problems although it seems the variation was not immediately registered at HMLR which caused a small delay. I don't know whose failure that was.

          Comment


            #6
            I believe the reason for doing variations is that a new lease would involve creating a formal title plan. As far as I know, it does actually create a new lease, though.

            Comment


              #7
              "freehold was bought by the lessees about 40 years ago"

              And the then newly made shareholders would have contributed to the purchace of the freehold.
              Did your parents, or any owner of current flat, contribute Money for purchace of the freehold?
              If so, they should get a free 999 yr lease.
              If not, then expect to pay the same amount the other leaseholders contributed at the time.

              Comment

              Latest Activity

              Collapse

              • Successful RTM claim
                skidder
                Hi all,

                I wonder if anybody can be of assistance.

                Cutting a long story short we have managed to obtain the RTM from a very aggressive freeholder. The right will transfer to us in August.

                It is a small block of four converted one bedroom flats

                We have...
                24-05-2018, 14:03 PM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                skidder
                Thanks Leaseholder64 for the reply.

                Apologies for the confusion.

                I have received a renewal from the freeholder for insurance for the upcoming year. I shall pay this and the majority will be refunded in August when we handover.

                I shall then arrange my own policy...
                27-05-2018, 15:56 PM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                leaseholder64
                I'm a bit confused because the first half says you are arranging the insurance and the second half says the freeholder is!

                Why would you think that he freeholder would not want to be name as having an interest in the insurance? (I would say it was essential they were named!)
                ...
                27-05-2018, 14:20 PM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                skidder
                Hi Gordon999

                I have received a notice confirming RTM will commence in August. The freeholder states that the insurance will run out on this date and I will have to arrange. Policy is currently £1920 for four flats. I need to name the freeholder on my policy.

                Also can you confirm...
                27-05-2018, 10:38 AM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                Gordon999
                Your RTM Is due to commence in August and will take over running the service account and maintenance of building. The RTM decides everything and freeholder is left with collecting the ground rent and dealing with forfeiture of lease (which is unlikely to happen ) .

                When does your current...
                27-05-2018, 10:21 AM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                skidder
                Thanks Leaseholder64 much appreciated.

                So as above I do not need to go through another section 20. i.e. If all 3 leaseholders sit down and agree specs etc costing say £5k. We would all divide the amount correctly and sign papers saying monies paid and agreed etc. Would this be sufficient?...
                26-05-2018, 15:32 PM
              • Reply to Successful RTM claim
                leaseholder64
                Section 20 protects the leaseholders, not the freeholder. If the freeholder objected it would be because the proposed work was not sufficient to comply with the lease, not because of consultation issues.

                You should get a lot of information on handover. Even if the contractors are abandoned,...
                26-05-2018, 15:15 PM
              • Sub Letting Fees
                isthisnameavailable
                Another topic on this, sorry I can see there have been plenty.

                I have today received a letter from {Mod - name removed} on behalf on {Mod - name removed}. They are saying I have not replied to their letter dated May 19 2017 (I haven't) and things will be passed on to external solicitors...
                21-05-2018, 18:22 PM
              • Reply to Sub Letting Fees
                leaseholder64
                I think the organisation in question is not a managing agent. They make money purely from acting as an agent for the freeholder for ground rent and administration charges. i don't think they manage the property.

                I suspect you have to think long and talk to your MP as it looks like they...
                26-05-2018, 14:58 PM
              • Reply to Sub Letting Fees
                Gordon999
                What is your recommendation if the freehold was sold without Right of First Refusal offer to leaseholders and current freeholder is using a managing agent to demand extortionate subletting fees ?
                26-05-2018, 14:15 PM
              Working...
              X