Sale of freehold Right of first refusal

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

  • Sale of freehold Right of first refusal

    A friend who isn't on line has asked me to raise a query.
    He has a 70 year lease on a flat. There is one other flat in the building. The other leaseholder recently informed him (verbally) that he has purchased the freehold. My friend has not received a notice of any kind from the original freeholder and his only contact with him was an informal conversation some months ago about the possibility of extending his lease.
    What remedy, if any, does he have? thanks

  • #2
    1. The procedures for entitlement to RFR and 90 years statutory lease extension are in free publications which can be downloaded from www.lease-advice.org

    2. Your friend can purchase a copy of the freehold title from Land Registry Online for 4 pds by credit card . This will show when and who is the current freeholder. If the freehold was sold without any prior offer under RFR , it may be a criminal offence and you need to seek legal advice..

    Comment


    • #3
      If the freeholder owns a flat in a 2 flat split such as this and wants to sell to an external
      Party it would seem absolutely pointless serving a section 5 notice as it requires both lessees to agree to purchase. One lessee cannot meet the requirement of being more than 50%

      Secondly where there is less than 10 units the legislation deems service to be correctly done if served on all but one flat. So the freeholder does not need to serve one on the upstairs flat and provided he sent one to himself then all appears to be ok

      Thirdly if the freeholder was a resident landlord at the property and it was a conversion there may also be an exemption there to be claimed

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sgclacy View Post
        If the freeholder owns a flat in a 2 flat split such as this and wants to sell to an external
        Party it would seem absolutely pointless serving a section 5 notice as it requires both lessees to agree to purchase. One lessee cannot meet the requirement of being more than 50%

        Secondly where there is less than 10 units the legislation deems service to be correctly done if served on all but one flat. So the freeholder does not need to serve one on the upstairs flat and provided he sent one to himself then all appears to be ok

        Thirdly if the freeholder was a resident landlord at the property and it was a conversion there may also be an exemption there to be claimed
        This would appear to be an annomoly as the FH could only serve it on one LH (who perhaps he had previoulsy arranged a deal with) whilst the other LH is blissfully unaware (and has in fact been excluded from the process on purpose and not by mistake).

        Andy
        Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

        I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

        It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

        Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

        Comment


        • #5
          It has already been determined, some time ago, that where there are two flats, both must be served. To allow otherwise undermines the overriding purpose of the legislation to grant the R2FR.

          Both do have the choice to exercise the right together, the legislation does not start at "only 3 flats or more" may qualify.
          Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andydd View Post
            This would appear to be an annomoly as the FH could only serve it on one LH (who perhaps he had previoulsy arranged a deal with) whilst the other LH is blissfully unaware (and has in fact been excluded from the process on purpose and not by mistake).

            Andy
            hi Andy, Yes that is what happened. The freeholder (non resident) did a deal with the other leaseholder without approaching my friend. My interpretation of Lease-Advice is that the freeholder can ignore one leaseholder, so say four flats in building he must serve notice on three, two in building, as in this case, obliged to serve notice on only one. Can that really be true? It seems unbelievable that the "right of first refusal" can be flouted in that way

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
              It has already been determined, some time ago, that where there are two flats, both must be served. To allow otherwise undermines the overriding purpose of the legislation to grant the R2FR.

              Both do have the choice to exercise the right together, the legislation does not start at "only 3 flats or more" may qualify.
              Hi, Just seen your post after I responded to Andy. Do you have any idea where I can find the decision you mention. Is it a court case or is this something the LVT deals with?

              Comment


              • #8
                It's an old decision, and is not binding. That it has not cropped up again that I can recall is that it is relatively rare that the right is offered or exercised in one ups one downs.

                The exemption is understood but it conflicts with the requirement to give notice where

                (b)they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants; and
                (c)the number of flats held by such tenants exceeds 50 per cent. of the total number of flats contained in the premises.

                then for
                (b)where the qualifying tenants on whom it was required to be served number less than ten, if he has served such a notice on all but one of them.]

                it would need to be "three or more".

                If there were three, then serving on two would pass muster.

                It would also preclude them forcing the new landlord to sell to them as there could be no "them" where one has bought without notice. The intention of parliament was clear.

                Frankly the cost of arguing this is another reason why it rarely comes up. It would cost more than the benefit in virtually all cases. Flats rarely have unexploited oil reserves or gold mines to fight over

                I suggest they do a deal and they jointly own it, extend their leases, and take the value out of the freehold. It's a quick profit for the other guy....
                Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                  It has already been determined, some time ago, that where there are two flats, both must be served. To allow otherwise undermines the overriding purpose of the legislation to grant the R2FR.

                  Both do have the choice to exercise the right together, the legislation does not start at "only 3 flats or more" may qualify.
                  I thought that might be the case, similar to RTM

                  Andy
                  Advice given is based on my experience representing myself as a leaseholder both in the County Court and at Leasehold Valuation Tribunals.

                  I do not accept any liability to you in relation to the advice given.

                  It is always recommended you seek further advice from a solicitor or legal expert.

                  Always read your lease first, it is the legally binding contract between leaseholder and freeholder.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  • Clarification on lease and recovering costs
                    jerome_sw
                    Please can someone clarify the meaning of this section of the lease;

                    "to indemnify the landlords against all costs charges and expenses (including legal costs and fees payable to any surveyor) which may be incurred or be borne by the landlords
                    (a) in or in contemplation of any...
                    20-08-2017, 11:45 AM
                  • Reply to Clarification on lease and recovering costs
                    jerome_sw
                    We are due to attend the FTT on the breach of covenant so if they deem the breach to have occurred then I am thinking (b) could apply. In any event I think (c) would apply as the costs have been incurred in pursuing the leaseholder to remedy the breach and repair the property back to it's original state....
                    20-08-2017, 20:37 PM
                  • Ground rent rpi base
                    landforce
                    Hi.

                    Hopefully an easy question but does anyone know if when the ground rent is rpi linked is it from when the leasehold was set up or when you purchased the property. I.e if leasehold was set up in dec 12 but the property was purchased in Sept 13 is the base from dec12 or Sept 13?...
                    20-08-2017, 08:48 AM
                  • Reply to Ground rent rpi base
                    sgclacy
                    The 1993 Act did not regard ground rents of little signicance - the full value had to be reflected in the valuation

                    by having a nil ground rent it was deigned to make it a complete formality for a lender to agree to the deed, originally it was intended that mortgagees consent would not...
                    20-08-2017, 15:31 PM
                  • Reply to Clarification on lease and recovering costs
                    andydd
                    Yes generally accepting the lease as continuing (by demanding and accepting rent/services charges) means you have waived any right to forfeit and so any right to costs, Im really not sure what b) and c) mean, a|) is the standard clause in most leases, Im not sure b) or c) cover breach of a covenant...
                    20-08-2017, 14:16 PM
                  • Reply to Ground rent rpi base
                    MrSoffit
                    "Two properties exactly the same one with a ground rent of a peppercorn and the other with a rent of £250 per annum will attract two differing sale prices. The one with a ground rent will clearly sell for less and the discount in the price is in effect a loan and the interest on that loan is in...
                    20-08-2017, 13:39 PM
                  • Reply to Ground rent rpi base
                    sgclacy
                    Rents linked to the RPI protects both the landlord and the tenant. From the landlords perspective it protects the rent from the adverse effects of inflation and from the Tenants point of view protects them from the consequences of the estimate of future inflation being wrong. For example if inflation...
                    20-08-2017, 11:53 AM
                  • Reply to Ground rent rpi base
                    MrSoffit
                    I ran some capitalisations assuming an original 99 year lease worth £100K when new with 79 years term left to run using the following variables:-

                    Increment rate (years): 15, 20, 25, 33
                    Method: RPI% @ 2.5%,3.5%,4.5% versus fixed doubling
                    Initial amounts: £100, £150, £200,...
                    20-08-2017, 11:08 AM
                  • Calling a meeting
                    surreygirl
                    We have not had a meeting for about four years and know nothing about the accounts or what is happening as I am not notified about a thing. When I asked for information about the accounts I was told to go to the Companies House web site but that doesnt tell me a thing.

                    I have sent out a...
                    19-08-2017, 19:37 PM
                  • Reply to Calling a meeting
                    MrSoffit
                    Hi,

                    I have no connection other than reading RAM's posts but in this case I'd probably follow whatever RAM suggests.

                    S21 is like all leaseholder rights - a chocolate fireguard. Yes there is a criminal offence and a fine. Wooo, scare me, they say.

                    The Court of Appeal...
                    20-08-2017, 10:52 AM
                  Working...
                  X