Can you Extend a Lease Twice?

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

    Can you Extend a Lease Twice?

    If I negotiate with my F to extend my 71 year lease to say 99 years and continue paying the £200 GR (so outside of the Act) can I (or new qualifying purchaser) subsequently go back and achieve a 90 year extension no GR under the Act.

    The advantage is that whilst Sportelli is currently "defining" GR deferment rates, reversion rates remain open to negotiation.

    Also if the second extension was with over 80 years term then MV negilible.

    My conveyancer thinks you can't, but the DCLG site suggests you can extend leases in perpetuity.
    Any ideas?

    #2
    Originally posted by Richardo View Post
    If I negotiate with my F to extend my 71 year lease to say 99 years and continue paying the £200 GR (so outside of the Act) can I (or new qualifying purchaser) subsequently go back and achieve a 90 year extension no GR under the Act.

    The advantage is that whilst Sportelli is currently "defining" GR deferment rates, reversion rates remain open to negotiation.

    Also if the second extension was with over 80 years term then MV negilible.

    My conveyancer thinks you can't, but the DCLG site suggests you can extend leases in perpetuity.
    Any ideas?
    1. If lease has >80 yrs unexpired, MV is nil.
    2. If extension I is non-statutory, you still have statutory rights available for extension II.
    3. If extension is non-statutory, it can be for as long a new term as parties agree (eg 999yrs). Statutory extension is 90 yrs always, so leads to replacement lease granted for unexpired term of old lease + 90.
    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

    Comment


      #3
      thx Jeffrey.

      Ok so extending outside of the Act doesn't limit statutory rights.

      Yes we could go to 999 years but I didn't mention the lease has an increasing GR of 1/200th of flat value every 21 years. Although we currently pay £200 until 2020, current GR would be £625 based on £125,000 value.

      So in reality extending on same terms isn't a good deal, but if we do a statutory LE cost will be c.£10k+. As we are medium-term sellers, a non-statutory extension under current terms would be significantly lower cost. As posted elsewhere, remaining term is usually the issue, not GR.

      MV at 80 years is deemed to be so small it can be ignored, but it isn't nil. We went to LVT (766) with 79.7 years remaining (qualification rules at the time delayed us) and F made great play of this point. MV was decided at 2% even though RT was 79 years and 9 months.

      Hence my sensitivity!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Richardo View Post
        thx Jeffrey.

        Ok so extending outside of the Act doesn't limit statutory rights.

        Yes we could go to 999 years but I didn't mention the lease has an increasing GR of 1/200th of flat value every 21 years. Although we currently pay £200 until 2020, current GR would be £625 based on £125,000 value.

        So in reality extending on same terms isn't a good deal, but if we do a statutory LE cost will be c.£10k+. As we are medium-term sellers, a non-statutory extension under current terms would be significantly lower cost. As posted elsewhere, remaining term is usually the issue, not GR.

        MV at 80 years is deemed to be so small it can be ignored, but it isn't nil. We went to LVT (766) with 79.7 years remaining (qualification rules at the time delayed us) and F made great play of this point. MV was decided at 2% even though RT was 79 years and 9 months.

        Hence my sensitivity!
        ...and statutory extension eliminates ground reny with immediate effect.
        As to "80 year" point, see para. 4(2A) in Schedule 13 of 1993 Act: "where... the unexpired term...exceeds eighty years, the marriage value shall be taken to be nil". Not just small- none at all.
        JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
        1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
        2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
        3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
        4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

        Comment


          #5
          Hi Jeffrey

          The LVT in its wisdom put considerable weight on s.128 of the 2002 amendments.

          (2A) Where at the relevant date the unexpired term of the lease held by any of those participating members exceeds eighty years, any increase in the value of the freehold or any intermediate leasehold interest in the specified premises which is attributable to his potential ability to have a new lease granted to him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to be ignored."

          Fs have (sucesssfully) claimed in a number of LVTs that the above paragraph confirms MV exists above 80 years and hence a relativity exists the second after midnight on the 79th year remaining. In our case a whole lot of relativity graphs were produced supporting this claim.

          Whilst i'm not convinced the LVT decisions are correct, we got our CE for £5k against the £13K the F wanted, so we were more than happy with this, especially as it was a DIY job.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Richardo View Post
            Hi Jeffrey

            The LVT in its wisdom put considerable weight on s.128 of the 2002 amendments.

            (2A) Where at the relevant date the unexpired term of the lease held by any of those participating members exceeds eighty years, any increase in the value of the freehold or any intermediate leasehold interest in the specified premises which is attributable to his potential ability to have a new lease granted to him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to be ignored."

            Fs have (sucesssfully) claimed in a number of LVTs that the above paragraph confirms MV exists above 80 years and hence a relativity exists the second after midnight on the 79th year remaining. In our case a whole lot of relativity graphs were produced supporting this claim.

            Whilst i'm not convinced the LVT decisions are correct, we got our CE for £5k against the £13K the F wanted, so we were more than happy with this, especially as it was a DIY job.
            Yes. Glad to hear that you came through OK.

            BUT s.128 of 2002 Act amended para. 4 of Schedule 6 to 1993 Act. That Schedule is headed "Freeholder's share of marriage value".

            It did NOT affect Schedule 13 to 1993 Act. Result: freeholder might well have an increased share of MV, but MV=0. Even twice nil is still nil!
            JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
            1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
            2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
            3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
            4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

            Comment


              #7
              Jeffrey

              I take your point but there are a couple of LVT decisions (ours included) whereby MV is deemed to exist >80 years but has to be disregarded.

              Hopefully this post will be useful to anyone in the same boat we were. If I had had your knowledge then we would have pushed the issue.

              Very many thanks

              Comment

              Latest Activity

              Collapse

              • AGM cancelled.
                by Grumio
                Is this legal?

                A bit of background, we currently have three directors, we are allowed to have up to a maximum of eight directors according to the articles of association. We are all leaseholders. Last summer the three directors decided to hire a managing agent who is now in charge of the...
                26-01-2022, 00:46 AM
              • Reply to AGM cancelled.
                by Grumio
                One of the directors is cooperating, but we’re not sure if that’s enough. He’s going to register us at companies house regardless of what the other 2 say. His view on the situation is, leaseholders are entitled to be directors, there is nothing in the articles that state directors must be approved...
                26-01-2022, 20:26 PM
              • Reply to AGM cancelled.
                by Grumio
                Thanks for the reply,

                The directors issued the invitations. The AGM wasn’t adjourned or postponed, it was cancelled. Fortunately one of the directors is more than happy to go ahead with the process even if the other two don’t want to get involved....
                26-01-2022, 20:16 PM
              • Service charges according to floorspace vs lease stipulation
                by Santa Fe
                Hello. I own a flat in a block of four. The new owner of the smallest flat is disputing their contribution to service charges based on floor size. All four flats have historically paid 25% each, but of the four leases only mine states that I pay 25%. I have spoken with a solicitor about this and he...
                24-01-2022, 22:55 PM
              • Reply to Service charges according to floorspace vs lease stipulation
                by Section20z
                Any examples please of tribunal increasing a percentage specified in a lease ? Thank you....
                26-01-2022, 19:22 PM
              • Reply to Service charges according to floorspace vs lease stipulation
                by Macromia
                Agreed, but the issue here is that the lease that the person complaining has doesn't say that they are required to pay 25%, it apparently says that they have to pay "a fair and reasonable proportion".

                With this being the case, they are fully entitled to challenge an equal split...
                26-01-2022, 19:07 PM
              • Reply to Who owns the windows in a flat above a commercial premises
                by Macromia
                Very true.
                This doesn't answer the question of who is responsible, but it could potentially be cheaper (and less hassle) for the OP if they can find a company willing to replace the windows without scaffolding.
                There is, of course, the possibility that the freeholder would refuse to allow...
                26-01-2022, 18:41 PM
              • Reply to Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Macromia
                For something like this, the reasons are of vital importance.
                Anyone can, of course, choose not to reveal details, but anyone making that choice should not complain at all if other forum users respond with answers that the person who isn't being completely open considers not to be relevant....
                26-01-2022, 18:37 PM
              • Reply to AGM cancelled.
                by fos333
                If invitations were sent out then it can't be cancelled, it can be adjourned, postponed, however, if the other director is willing to go ahead with the meeting it will be a valid meeting as long as it's quorate. I don't agree with eagle2 that it will only be seen as an informal meeting, all directors...
                26-01-2022, 18:19 PM
              • Reply to Who owns the windows in a flat above a commercial premises
                by royw
                Most windows can be replaced from the inside without the need for scaffolding which will make it much cheaper.
                26-01-2022, 18:04 PM
              Working...
              X