Buying a share of freehold? (2 flats: 1 with lease, 1 without lease)

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

    Buying a share of freehold? (2 flats: 1 with lease, 1 without lease)

    Could anyone who is familiar with the law about leaseholders obtaining a share of freehold offer any advice/comments about if they think I would be able to? I did another post yesterday related to a leasehold flat that I'm trying to buy, but this question is specifically about if I could obtain a share of the freehold after buying the flat. I think the answer is no but I'm new to this topic and not sure if I've understood the rules properly.

    The building has two flats in total - converted from a house in the late 80s. The lower flat (the one i want to buy), has a lease but the other flat is owned by the freeholder and doesn't have a lease. As far as I can tell from the info' in the lease, the current freeholder isn't the one who created the lease for the lower flat, so I assume that they bought the freehold and the upper flat which doesn't have a lease at some point after the 80s. I don't know if the freeholder has ever lived in either of the flats, but they currently rent out the upper flat which doesn't have a lease.

    This point which I read on the LEASE website makes me think that this building wouldn't qualify for obtaining a share of freehold: 'at least two-thirds of the flats must be owned by qualifying tenants.' Does that mean that both flats in the building would need to have leases in order for the lesees to buy the freehold (or more precisely, for the lower flat to buy half of the freehold from the current freeholder)?

    Another point also suggests that it's not a goer: 'It should be noted that where there are only two flats in the building, both flats of qualifying tenants must participate.' Well, I guess the upper flat can't be a qualifying tenant because it doesn't have a lease and is owned by the current freeholder, so does that mean that 100% of the leasehold flats qualify (i.e. the lower flat, as that's the only flat which has a lease), or does it mean that only 50% of the flats are qualifying tenants and therefore there is no right to acquire the freehold?

    Seems like the answer is no, but grateful if any of you could confirm one way or the other.


    #2
    To qualify for collective enfranchisement, the premises must contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants. Therefore it's not an option for you in the situation you have described, as you would be the only qualifying tenant.

    Comment

    Latest Activity

    Collapse

    • Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
      by SSLA91
      Hi all,

      Long time lurker of this forum and recent new member. Have always found the forum incredibly helpful so thank you! Have now got an issue with our freeholder that I could use some specific advice on (have tried searching for similar posts but to no avail).

      We have recently...
      20-10-2021, 20:28 PM
    • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
      by eagle2
      It makes you wonder why any freeholder should comply with s20 at all. As you say, it can wait to see if any leaseholder challenges the costs. It does not even need to explain why it did not comply with s20, the only consideration appears to be whether or not the leaseholders suffered any financial prejudice,...
      23-10-2021, 06:34 AM
    • Section 20 notice
      by Starlane
      Hello I would welcome input on the following:
      Two roofs feed into a valley, the valley is in need of repair, this is a shared responsibility and therefore a shared cost. so how do we issue a section 20 notice when really we need the consent and agreement from two different buildings/landlords...
      22-10-2021, 19:09 PM
    • Reply to Section 20 notice
      by Starlane
      Hi Macromia thank you as always for your helpful and sensible input.. one building is saying one thing and another building the other, the usual chinese whispers so I took the bull by the horns and spoke to everyone and I am almost there apart from a Director who wants to do their own thing ( not being...
      22-10-2021, 20:57 PM
    • Reply to Share of freehold questions - confused
      by Starlane
      Agree thank you...
      22-10-2021, 20:52 PM
    • Share of freehold questions - confused
      by sixunforced
      Not sure if this is the right place for this query but anyway, I'm a first time buyer and have been searching for a property for like two years now (not continuously but on and off and obv covid halted my search for a while). I found a really nice 2 bedroom flat for under £320,000 in a block of around...
      18-11-2020, 21:19 PM
    • Reply to Section 20 notice
      by Macromia
      Assuming that the two freeholders have agreed that they will work together and share the costs, they jointly agree what needs to be communicated to the leaseholders and then each freeholder writes to the leaseholders in their building.
      22-10-2021, 20:16 PM
    • Reply to Freeholder threatening to cut water off
      by Macromia
      This is possibly by far the most important consideration, in my opinion.
      If the OP's lease doesn't allow 'improvements' to be charged to service charges, the freeholder cannot require them to contribute anything towards the costs, and would therefore be something that they would have had no choice...
      22-10-2021, 20:08 PM
    • Freeholder threatening to cut water off
      by Disraeli-LLH
      I was hoping you would be able to help. We own a ground floor flat LLH(970 yrs remaining). The freeholder owns the house and lets the flat upstairs on an AST.

      The freeholder currently undertaking works including replumbing. We have been on a shared water supply and we connect through their...
      20-10-2021, 15:35 PM
    • Reply to Freeholder/Agent Demanding Money for Repairs
      by Macromia
      Possibly...

      Although when my freeholder applied for dispensation a while back (arguing that the proposed work had to be carried out as a matter of urgency) they were granted dispensation with the First Tier Tribunal commenting that the 2013 Supreme Court Case of Daejan versus Benson meant...
      22-10-2021, 19:51 PM
    Working...
    X