freeholder not the lessor?

[leaseholdanswers]

actually I think the agent could be right -although unlikely- if the ground floor flat is being sold with the freehold but A N Other owns a headlease out of which the residential flats are carved - so that you will be the freeholder but not the immediate lessor.

If the GF flat owner owns the freehold, then it is unlikely that they would have, or kept an historic, intervening head lease. it is far more likely that they have bought the flat and at a later date bought the freehold.

£6 at HMLR on line and its should be clear in most cases in a matter of minutes.

[Lawcruncher]

actually I think the agent could be right -although unlikely- if the ground floor flat is being sold with the freehold but A N Other owns a headlease out of which the residential flats are carved - so that you will be the freeholder but not the immediate lessor.

I was thinking it might be something like that. In any event the suggestion is that the situation is not a straightforward one.

[leaseholdanswers]

You could be right. However, I suspect he has something to communicate.

Relying solely on the post, it reads as if the EA is simply using phrases in a random fashion in the hope that one will pacify the purchaser. It is relatively simple,

"thank you for the valued instruction to offer your flat for sale. Do you have a recent ground rent and or service charge demand to hand, and do you know the lease length? OK can you find out the latter and I am sending you a link to HMLR its £3 to get a copy of the register which will let us know your length of lease-buyers will ask."

[flyingfreehold]

actually I think the agent could be right -although unlikely- if the ground floor flat is being sold with the freehold but A N Other owns a headlease out of which the residential flats are carved - so that you will be the freeholder but not the immediate lessor.

[Lawcruncher]

sadly i doubt the ea does know what he means

You could be right. However, I suspect he has something to communicate.

[leaseholdanswers]

He sounds as though he may not know. If the 'agent' was the office junior (as seems likely), demand to speak to the boss?

but they should know when instructed to sell and put it on the particulars. title(s) have ahuge effect on value, mortgagability, and future liability. its not hard, a few minutes on hmlr online and you know whats what.

[leaseholdanswers]

Put thus, no. However, the agent probably means something. Best thing is to ask him exactly what he means.

sadly i doubt the ea does know what he means

[mind the gap]

Put thus, no. However, the agent probably means something. Best thing is to ask him exactly what he means.

He sounds as though he may not know. If the 'agent' was the office junior (as seems likely), demand to speak to the boss?

[Lawcruncher]

I am looking to purchase a ground floor flat. The agent says buy buying ground floor flat I would own the freehold of the building. However I am not the lessor (not the owner of the lease for flat above).

Is this possible?

Put thus, no. However, the agent probably means something. Best thing is to ask him exactly what he means.

[leaseholdanswers]

the kind of ea that needs punching. if it was a car and he didnt know if it was front wheel or rear drive, you wouldnt trust him..

go to hmlr online and look at the leasehold and freehold title. the flat may n fact be the whole building less the other flats and its lease, or all flats on leases and your seller also owning the FH, or the FH jointly owned by all flat owners or their company. if you do get the freehold, make sure you know what obligatins you have and that u can get your costs back

[ram]

The agent seemed clueless as he said *its a share of freehold, then he said its a freehold*. Can a third party own a the lease for a 1st flr flat and not the freeholder?

to answer, and other questions put forth.

Normal practice is
There is a freeholder, who has issued leases to 2 flats.

The freeholder is the Lessor of both flats.
The flat owners are the lessees.
You have a company that owns the freehold, but the 2 lessees are shareholders ( 50% ) of the freehold, and one or both are directors.

The property is "freehold", and the lessees have a 50% share in the company that owns the freehold.

*So yes, there is a share of freehold, and the property IS freehold.*

It is also possible that each flat has it's own "freehold" of half the property, each doing repairs to the top or bottom half, but is rare, as it's not fair.

ASK to see the lease tomorrow, in which it will state who the freeholder is, ( an individual/s / company name ) and how the service charges are split.

UNTIL you tell us what's in the lease, we cannot advise further.

Look forward to your confirmation on Monday evening.

R.a.M.

[Sad S]

The agent seemed clueless as he said its a share of freehold, then he said its a freehold.

Can a third party own a the lease for a 1st flr flat and not the freeholder?

There can be all sorts of different arrangements of who owns the freehold of a block of flats (including in this term houses converted into flats).

Sometimes an unconnected individual or a remote company may own the freehold, sometimes a company in which each leaseholder has a share, sometimes one of the leaseholders holds the freehold for the whole building.

When you buy a flat in England or Wales you nearly always buy leasehold, that is a long lease with a term somewhere between 70 and 999 years. The "lessor" is the freeholder, and the "lessee" is the leaseholder. Sometimes this will come with a share in the freehold company, sometimes not, and sometimes it will be offered together with the freehold of the whole building.

It is certainly not the case that the leaseholder of a ground floor always owns the freehold of the building, though it may sometimes be true.

Estate Agent sounds as if he doesn't know. Ask the vendor?

[kosmicmisfit]

The agent seemed clueless as he said its a share of freehold, then he said its a freehold.

Can a third party own a the lease for a 1st flr flat and not the freeholder?

[johnboy]

I guess it is possible.

I am also assuming this is a property that has been split into 2 flats.

Normally when the freehold is included with the sale you are getting a equal share as it is split between the other flat owners.

It isn't impossible that that the person who owns the ground floor flat also owns the whole freehold to the building and is including that with the sale and if so that would give you the right to collect the ground rent (if any) from the top flat and arrange the building (block) insurance.

You would also be able to sell a 50% share to the upstairs flat owner as it has a value especially if the years left on the lease is getting low, 80 years or less.

Or the estate agent has got the wrong end of the stick , hasn't asked the right questions or knows very little regarding leasehold and freehold issues and implications.

[ram]

I assume the building is maybe a house with one downstairs flat and one upstairs flat.

Some one owns, and must own the freehold.

The current downstairs flat must own the freehold of the ground and building, so when sold, the freehold comes with the sale of downstairs flat.

All it means is you are then responsible for the maintenence of the whole building and cost to maintain, and to collecting the service charges for that.

It would be financial suicide to have a managing agent to look after 2 flats, so currently the seller would be collecting the service charges.

READ the lease which will state the obligations of the freeholder,
All it could be is you work out the costs per year ( buildings insurance, maintenence, repairs etc ) and divide it by 2.
The lease "should" state each leaseholder to pay 50% of the costs.

No too big a problem, but you need to KNOW and SEE the last 3 years service charge accounts, and that each flat has paid their 50%'s.