Can leaseholders scupper my plans to develop rooftop?

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Neelix View Post
    So the OP thinks he can close up existing roof lights, turn top floor flats into 2nd floor flats and not expect a fight.

    Arrogant twat.

    At the very least I think the OP needs to offer to buy both of the top flats ................
    I never said I don’t expect a fight. What I’m trying to establish though is the legal position, i.e. can they call for an injunction and just stop the works, or is it a matter
    of compensation, and if so, what sort of amounts are talking about here.

    I’ve not heard of freeholders offering to buy the affected leaseholders’ flats, is this a common practice?


    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

      Either they have the right or they do not. If they have it the court has no power to make them give it up however much compensation is on offer.
      precisely. My impression was that as their plans and lease wordings don’t show or mention the skylights, this makes the leaseholders’ claim weaker. That said, I’m 100% certain the skylights have been there from day 1 i.e. it’s not the case that those residents illegally created the openings in the roof. The paperwork of the building isn’t in the best shape in general, which is probably why the skylights are not reflected in the docs.

      Comment


        #18
        How many storeys does a purpose-built block of flats need to be for permitted development rights to apply? This is something as a lessee in a block I would be concerned about should the freeholder decide to develop. Thank you.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by vmart View Post
          How many storeys does a purpose-built block of flats need to be for permitted development rights to apply? This is something as a lessee in a block I would be concerned about should the freeholder decide to develop. Thank you.
          In very broad terms

          The building needs to have been built post 1945 and before March 2018

          It needs to be currently 3 stories high from ground level

          Must be purpose built block

          The extended building must not exceed 30 meters

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Section20z View Post

            Outrageous.
            Why is it ?

            If I have a freehold house and I extend it or create it into flats, that is within my rights

            If the flats were sold with a promise that there would be no changes, then that would be different. The issue I think is that the possibility of such development was never considered by the buyer of the flats, but that failure should not preclude the owner of the freehold from exploiting his asset.

            As more and more people embrace capitalism and acquire capital which can of course bring advantages but also comes with the responsibility to fully understand what you are entering into and if that is delegated to solicitors, then they must become accountable but equally expect the cost of such legal work to increase.



            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by sgclacy View Post

              Why is it ?

              If I have a freehold house and I extend it or create it into flats, that is within my rights

              If the flats were sold with a promise that there would be no changes, then that would be different. The issue I think is that the possibility of such development was never considered by the buyer of the flats, but that failure should not preclude the owner of the freehold from exploiting his asset.

              As more and more people embrace capitalism and acquire capital which can of course bring advantages but also comes with the responsibility to fully understand what you are entering into and if that is delegated to solicitors, then they must become accountable but equally expect the cost of such legal work to increase.
              I agree completely - but there is a problem. I am most definitely someone who believes in human freedom and the free market, the right to enter freely into contracts of various sorts (even if they are bad contracts), and that the state should not meddle beyond the enforcing of contracts.

              I think the difficulty is that there is no equipoise here. On the one hand freeholders have the right to exploit their asset based on the contracts they hold (no matter what harm that might cause to others). But the whole structure of law and its practical implementation means that freeholders are able to break the law, and to breach contracts at will without punishment. The law for example prescribes that document of various sorts have to be provided, but makes it impossible to act on that law. Most (99%) of leases do not provide meaningful scope or imagine that freeholders would make a profit beyond ground rent and reversion -- and yet it has become a lucrative business due tom backhanders and various other sorts of corruption and skimming.

              In terms of your last paragraph here - think it is more the case that prospective leaseholders should understand that they are likely to be stolen from BEYOND what the lease says, and that there is nothing they will be able to do about that. It is for that reason, not the leases themselves that nobody should consider purchasing a leasehold property right now.

              Comment


                #22
                I think the key to this is who owns the roof or has some right to it?
                Can the building work actually be carried out without the co-operation of the leaseholders who might object?

                I'd have thought it might be advantageous to consider sharing some of the upside in exchange for sharing the considerable downside(s).
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  I'd have thought it might be advantageous to consider sharing some of the upside in exchange for sharing the considerable downside(s).
                  And don't forget the leaseholders do have some minor power which can be exerted in some sort of violent manner in the absence of other protection under the law. They could for example, through their behaviour at the edges of the law, make every flat in the building essentially un-saleable including the new builds (playing very loud music 24/7, filling the building with weed smoke, leaving mess around the place, filling flats with very nasty tenants indeed.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by sgclacy View Post

                    Why is it ?

                    If I have a freehold house and I extend it or create it into flats, that is within my rights
                    Yes but you would need to comply with planning regulations which are there to protect our environment. To whack two storeys on top of my 30's deco apartment block in a narrow city street without the need for full planning consent and consultation is, in my opinion, outrageous

                    On five of my blocks I have solar PV that offends no-one and provides free communal electricity (with the added benefit that the FITT more than pays for my Tesla).

                    This of course shows why freeholders should never give up attic or roof space

                    Comment


                      #25
                      sgclay, thank you. That's quite worrying. I understand the need for more homes but with arguably structural changes arising from the pandemic there should be plenty of commercial premises available for development of residential accommodation.

                      Do these new rights extend to leaseholders of flats in any way i.e. comparable to PD rights owners of houses currently have? Thank you.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post


                        In terms of your last paragraph here - think it is more the case that prospective leaseholders should understand that they are likely to be stolen from BEYOND what the lease says and that there is nothing they will be able to do about that. It is for that reason, not the leases themselves, that nobody should consider purchasing a leasehold property right now.
                        I don't think it is quite that bleak. The RTM legislation is there to enable motivated lessees to take control and address the problems on service charges. With regard to ground rent and lease, extension costs, the disclosure of the NPV of a ground rent stream would address the issue of aggressive doubling rents and greater consumer knowledge would address the possible future costs of lease extensions

                        I do think some campaigning has not been focused on the right areas. The internet has given those whose views, in some cases are not well articulated, a megaphone to be heard A near hysteria over ground rents and the knee-jerk reaction to the cladding issue have been whipped up into a frenzy due to the internet and have caused plenty of problems to lessees who should never have had a problem in the first place.

                        Lessees with a ground rent of say 0.15% of the value of their flat linked to the RPI every 5 years being advised their flat is unmortgageable. It's not, it should result in a modest reduction in the value of £3k or so

                        A block of flats say three stories high, with fire and smoke alarms in place ( and maintained regularly) populated by civilized people who should not need sedatives to sleep and suppress the fear that they could be burnt to death at night The fact that an outside balcony is clad in a material now deemed unsuitable should not make lessees think they are playing Russian roulette every night when they go to sleep. Some would have you believe that the cladding to these buildings is akin to having petrol tanks strapped to the side of the building.

                        Following measured debate, there appears to be an outbreak of common sense and restrictions have been lifted on low rise buildings

                        Comment


                          #27
                          The problem isn't the occupants of buildings who might be happy and reassured about the condition of their buildings.
                          The problem is the views of anyone that they might at some point want to sell their property to.

                          Should I buy a flat where I might have to pay to remove something dangerous, and where I have no control over when that happens or any certainty that nothing dangerous will eventually replace it or shall I buy a property where I have greater control and freedom (even if it's smaller or less local to where I ideally want to be)?
                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Section20z View Post

                            Yes but you would need to comply with planning regulations which are there to protect our environment. To whack two storeys on top of my 30's deco apartment block in a narrow city street without the need for full planning consent and consultation is, in my opinion, outrageous

                            On five of my blocks I have solar PV that offends no-one and provides free communal electricity (with the added benefit that the FITT more than pays for my Tesla).

                            This of course shows why freeholders should never give up attic or roof space
                            Your outrage should be aimed at those who allow such rights to be created.

                            The freeholder/developer is only exploiting rights given to them

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Section20z View Post

                              Not sure it would turn them into second floor flats if they are already on the 9th.
                              I'm sure that you understand the point.

                              What level the flats are actually on is irrelevant, the point is that the leases would have been purchased as 'top floor' flats and will become flats with neighbours above if the freeholder builds on top.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                I nearly purchased a flat just like the current top floor flats in this building. Similar to the flats in this building, there was a skylight PLUS a ship-ladder staircase and a rooftop deck with plumbing and electric hooked into this flat's meters. Based on various documents, this existed from the time of development in 2002. Based on the lease, the skylight, ship-ladder staircase, and roof terrace did not exist. The lease was completely silent about any right for this flat to use the roof or the skylight, even though it had been built with a roof terrace.

                                My solicitor tried to work with the vendor to get a deed of variation, but the freeholder would not agree to any formal right to use - not even non-exclusive. There were a few other signs that this was going to be a problem situation, so I pulled out. Flat went under offer again. That buyer pulled out. Later I learned there was at least one more before me. The flat never sold, and is probably unsellable except at an enormous discount. It was very clear to me (and to multiple solicitors) that the freeholder was going to build on this roof if he was able.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X