Freeholder creating new lease on parts of common area

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

    Freeholder creating new lease on parts of common area

    Bit of a complex one...

    There are 24 apartments each with a single parking space which the lease makes reference to. All of the leases were dated 2006. The Management Company is part owned by each leaseholder, the freeholder has no day to day interest in the common areas of the site other than collecting the annual ground rent.

    The lease says the common areas are "...boundary walls, visitor parking (marked " Visitors" on the plan (note there isnt any!)) all grass paved and flagged areas not demised by this lease or any lease of any other apartment in the Building."

    According to the site plan there are five spaces which are unallocated. There is no mention of these spaces in the lease wording, therefore the Management Company have always assumed that it forms part of the common area due to the above clause. We know the original leases only make mention to the single parking space allocated to each apartment.

    It appears that the original Freeholder may have sold rights to additional spaces after the lease was drawn in 2006. I would have thought that they are not allowed to do this as effectively creating a new lease on something that has already been assigned as a common area? Is this interpretation correct and would a deed of variation need to be agreed (otherwise what stops the freeholder leasing whatever they like of the common areas)?

    Thanks for reading!

    #2
    My first thought is to check the planning permission. If that required the provision of visitor parking spaces, then that is all that these spaces can be used for.

    That aside the lease does make reference to visitor parking, and therefore it is a matter of argument that spaces which are not allocated or demised are therefore visitor spaces, and part of the common parts, as indicated by the site plan.

    If these are the spaces you say have been sold then I would agree that the leases ought not to have been granted but the fact remains that they have. I would be looking closely at the extent of the Man Co's powers as the grant of the leases may also be something outside of the FH's remit having bestowed the management role on the Man CO.

    As you can see there are number of avenues to explore.

    What then is your issue- a loss of visitors spaces?
    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


      #3
      If a landlord grants tenants rights over land and then grants a lease of that land the tenancy is subject to the rights granted. No deed of variation is necessary.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by hillwalker2004 View Post

        It appears that the original Freeholder may have sold rights to additional spaces after the lease was drawn in 2006.
        Why do you think this?
        I accept no legal responsibility for comments/advice I make on this forum. Please check with a solicitor before acting on statements made in a public forum.

        Comment


          #5
          OP should contact the other 23 leaseholders to collectively buy the freehold title before any more common areas are sold off.

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X