Freeholder giving away, for free, part of the garden, to a leaseholder.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The spaces are not being moved. A non-demised, additional licence is being given for adjacent space.


      17 month delay in replying. There are no licences have been given, I know this for a fact., and no lease amendments have taken place.
      Also the demised parking spaces are clearly shown on every flat lease for last 40 years.
      The "new spaces" are demised to the flat owners, as far as the Directors and leaseholders are concerned, without changing the lease via Deed of variation.
      The directors always refuse to modify the lease if needed, so they don't have to fork out for solicitors, or revised plans.

      We could fit 3 cars ( one flat ; One parking space ) along the front wall with space at one end near the entrance to allow easy access as one has to turn right when entering.

      Number of cars able to park has now doubled, made by stealing part of the common driveway, and part of the garden at the other end, with slight inconvenience turning right if the tenant ( renter ) has a large car.
      The front garden was one large car length from the wall, but now they have removed half of that small garden area as well, which is common ground also.

      As I said, can they give away parts of the common use driveway and small front grass area, when I objected to this alteration.
      I thought all leaseholders had to agree to give away common ground and garden to leaseholders and to be sold to the leaseholders, and that leases had to be changed to reflect the changes.


        I think it is all those twho have an easement allowing them to use it, which is not necessarily the same as all the leaseholders.

        If you have an easement over the garden, you could set up your deck chair in a place where the easement allows that, but doesn't allow motor vehicles, and do so at a time when trespass is likely.

        Unfortunately, cars are so important to people these days, that I imagine there is a lot of pressure to sacrifice green space to car parking. That's what has happened generally to front gardens, in London. As noted in the Parliament thread, leaseholder run companies and the law tend to be strangers.

        If you haven't done so already, you should obtain the original planning conditions from the council, and see if they have been breached. In theory you have ten years for condition breaches.


          Dear Leaseholder64

          Earlier in this thread you wrote:

          "If it is demised to you, they cannot re-allocate it unilaterally, but if there is only an easement, the exact terms of that easement may matter, e.g. the easement in the other case lapsed when the land ceased to be a garden, and, from the point of view of the lease, I believe the freeholder didn't need permission to convert it to a car park, even though that is not what actual happened in that case."

          Could you please signpost me to the case you mentioned.


            That would mean trawling very old postings to work out what the original context was. You have more incentive to do that than I do. I do seem to be remember it was by someone who raised large numbers of threads on it, but I can't remember who that was.


              Dear Leaseholder64
              Thank you for your reply. I just thought you might remember the case.



                if you look at the freehold title and title plan - downloadable from the land registry web site if the title plan shows little boxes with numbers in them then it is demised and cannot be altered or varied without the lessees consent

                If the area is not specifically demised the freeholder can reduce or take away areas of ground which lessees have right if way over but not so access and egress is restricted and may we’ll face a claim for damages for the degrogation of such rights.

                Invariably when a block block is further developed at some stage some area where lessee have rights of way this can be compromised and a development cannot be blocked because a small area of common ground. of say a few square meters is lost


                  Originally posted by sgclacy View Post
                  if you look at the freehold title and title plan - downloadable from the land registry web site if the title plan shows little boxes with numbers in them then it is demised and cannot be altered or varied without the lessees consent
                  In post 3, 7 & 9 i state parking spaces are demised. - But no one was listening
                  And of course i have the estate plan showing 3 of the spaces in question as demised, and numbered, but prior to the changes, which are not being recorded,

                  Where as 3 cars parked in their respective places, according to the original plans, the area now used can squeeze in 6 cars. Therefore the common ground of the drive has been "Given" to leaseholders for free.
                  The small front garden ( along the front wall ) is the width of 6 cars, and small garden reduced by half, so cars have moved three quarters forward as well.

                  I did not give my consent to give away for free any common ground.

                  Thanks sgclacy


                    Common land is not jointly owned, so your consent is not needed. This is about easements. You have easements to use the common land in certain ways. If those easements are being frustrated, you may have a right to compensation or to a limited level of direct action (you may be able to physically move obstructing vehicles just sufficiently to allow you to drive past).

                    Demised parking spaces are different, but you issue appears to be with the driveway.


                    Latest Activity


                    • HELP - lease clause

                      Im due to complete on Monday which is the scariest part of this. I have a house cat. My lease is POORLY worded with a clause that says:

                      " No pets may be kept in a flat and where the property is a house you must not keep any animal including livestock except a pet...
                      16-08-2019, 23:15 PM
                    • Reply to HELP - lease clause
                      Regardless of its provenance, the OFT guidance was based on short term letting, not long term leases.
                      It was called "Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements"

                      The document has been replaced with a more general guide to unfair terms in contracts.
                      But it relates...
                      20-08-2019, 08:01 AM
                    • Underlet registration fee

                      My freehold management company, also known as the Devil, {Mod - name removed}, are requesting an £138 underlet registration fee from me. I realise its been discussed umpteen times but thought if I post the clause (attached) they are relying upon I might find someone with a better mind...
                      02-08-2019, 19:02 PM
                    • Reply to Underlet registration fee
                      The solicitors are correct, the LVT does not have the power because it ceased to exist in June 2013.

                      The FTT would also not have the jurisdiction to consider the charge because it is not a variable administration charge, you have the right to choose a fixed fee of £5 as stated by Lawcruncher...
                      20-08-2019, 04:47 AM
                    • Reply to HELP - lease clause
                      The property agent told you you can get consent for a house cat.

                      Your solicitor told you the lease says cats can be kept with consent.

                      The HA told you that they would grant permission pending the information provided. Presumably they want to reserve the right to refuse if you...
                      20-08-2019, 01:17 AM
                    • Reply to Underlet registration fee
                      The power seems to have existed since September 2004, which is before the FTT replaced the LVT (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Schedule 11).
                      19-08-2019, 21:27 PM
                    • Reply to HELP - lease clause
                      Yes that’s right, he interprets it the same way as the HA do - the HA have clarified their position that it is, in their opinion, a blanket ban on pets in flats. The solicitor would therefore then argue that such a term would be considered unfair and therefore not legally binding....
                      19-08-2019, 20:55 PM
                    • Reply to HELP - lease clause
                      I have already researched that case actually - the question in that case is whether the management company was reasonable in its refusal. This is quite different to this situation, whereby a blanket ban (which the HA are implying they have) allows no potential special circumstances to be taken into...
                      19-08-2019, 20:52 PM
                    • Reply to Underlet registration fee
                      Well its been two weeks and they still haven't responded to my request for the freeholders solicitors details. we shall see what happens....

                      they did send previously a templated response saying that "the LVT does not have power to rule that a registration fee is unreasonable"....
                      19-08-2019, 19:36 PM
                    • Reply to HELP - lease clause
                      My comment regarding livestock was intended to be tongue in cheek!
                      I think that you'd have to be more specific than "indoors" though - factory farmed livestock might not see anything other than the inside of a building until loaded into a cramped truck to be taken for slaughter.
                      19-08-2019, 18:29 PM