Co-freeholders will not sign assign freehold to my buyer

[ismith]

Be very grateful for any info. or advice. I have a buyer for my flat which is being sold with a share of the freehold. There are 3 flats each with a share. The other 2 freeholders will not sign the TR1 form. The reason they give is they say i breached the lease 6 years ago. They have not mentioned this for 6 years until my flat goes under offer nor taken any legal action or even emails until being asked to sign the TR1. My question is can they legally with hold their signatures for an informal very late (6 years) unproven allegation of a breach of the lease by myself. Obviously now not only will this delay the current sale it may put at risk further sales if this one falls through. Can they do this legally? Is it relevant that the TR1 deals with the transfer of the freehold and they allegations refer to the leasehold and myself and nothing to do with the person they are transfering the freehold share to? What action can i take?

[sgclacy]

What are the allegations made against you

[mattl]

I agree, it all depends on what you were said to have done and whether they indeed have a good claim against you.

[andybenw]

As above you need to provide more information, as nobody will be able to answer what is basically an incomplete question.

What is the alleged breach. Are they willing to sign the TR1 after the alleged breach has been rectified. If so what do they wish done for 'rectification'.

Answers to these 3 points should allow some informative responses, both practical from others experience, and also law based as there are a couple of solicitors who will reply to you.

[leaseholdanswers]

Sell the lease and retain your interest inthe freehold

[ismith]

Thanks everyone. The problem is they are not being specific as to what they think i have done. They think i did "works" in 2008 about which they are concerned about the "safety". One of the issues is that i replaced a window without their permission. This person has already replaced windows without asking the other 2 freeholders for permission so it is strange now that they are want it for mine when they stated earlier in an email that it wasn't a freehold concern.

The main reason i posted this question is i have a solicitor who has given me advice that having read this forum i think may not be correct. He said that the freehold issues should be separate from the leasehold issues and that I should just sue them !?! That they can not with hold their signatures for leasehold issues ie alleged breach of the lease. As far as i can see from your answers it seems they can with hold their signature. Does it depend on whether their concerns are reasonable or not? And if so who judges that short of going to court ? However if that is so its not a black and white issue as presented by this solicitor.

Thanks Leasehold Answers i think that may be the way forward however the buyer may not be willing to buy just the lease because almost everyone (except people that read this forum) think its better to buy with a share in the freehold .

[leaseholdanswers]

Your present case of course showing how owning the freehold works so well People bang on about big landlord and big agent but in truth there are as many frustrating examples and scandalous behavior in owner controlled freeholds, let alone the appalling advice that allowed 3 to own a freehold without the mechanics to deal with this situation.

The suggestion above effectively says to the other 2 " I am no 1" with the middle finger as they no longer have a hold over you. Should bring them to the table.

[Lawcruncher]

Up to a point, what can be done depends on what the documentation says. If the documentation is silent then the solicitor is right that the freehold and leasehold issues are separate, though I am not sure on what basis the two other leaseholders can be sued for declining to transfer the freehold. The OP can sell the lease without regard to the freehold. As to the freehold he can either retain his interest or assign it to the buyer. If he does the latter then he and the other two leaseholders will hold the freehold on behalf of the buyer and the other two leaseholders. When the other two leaseholder twig that the OP will still have a measure of control and that they will need his cooperation if they want to sell their share in the freehold they may soon do what is required of them. The problem is of course to persuade the buyer's conveyancer that the arrangement is satisfactory.

[andybenw]

If I was buying the leasehold I would be expecting my solicitor to pick up on the fact that a freehold interest was being retained by the seller and that there may be problems so LHA solution might not work, as in finding a willing buyer may be problematic.

Ismith, if the co freeholders are not being specific, then you need to get in contact and tell them they need to be specific. Only once you know what they are asking for will you or anyone else know whether it is a reasonable request.

[Lawcruncher]

Your present case of course showing how owning the freehold works so well

Which is why what is needed is a system where each flat owner has the equivalent of a freehold interest. We have a such a system but it was never taken up.

[leaseholdanswers]

Which is why what is needed is a system where each flat owner has the equivalent of a freehold interest. We have a such a system but it was never taken up.

Because it is complete sh!t the commonholder has virtually no rights of redresslet alone none of the right of a leaseholder to seek independent determination at the FTT-PC

[leaseholdanswers]

If I was buying the leasehold I would be expecting my solicitor to pick up on the fact that a freehold interest was being retained by the seller and that there may be problems so LHA solution might not work, as in finding a willing buyer may be problematic.

Ismith, if the co freeholders are not being specific, then you need to get in contact and tell them they need to be specific. Only once you know what they are asking for will you or anyone else know whether it is a reasonable request.

Why, they are not obligated to sell the freehold.

[andybenw]

Why, they are not obligated to sell the freehold.

Well, if I was buying a flat in a small conversion where all other flat owners were on the title register and the owner of the leasehold I was purchasing wished to retain his/her interest in the freehol, I would be envisaging there must be a reason for that. I would be expecting my solicitor also to pick up on that fact.

It would be very likely that the reason was a problem with ownership/maintenance, possibly a power struggle etc and would put up a red flag in my view.

It would have nothing do do with obligation. And you well know this, as in other threads you have concurred with witholding TR1 signature as a tactic yourself when there have been problems with a seller.

[leaseholdanswers]

But there are many conceivable reasons why a freeholder not obligated to sell might retain an interest eg lease extensions premiums loans to purchase the freehold where participation was less than 100% future development rights even healthy ground rent income.

[andybenw]

Yes, but in a small joint freehold such as this where each flat is on the register it would be normal for the freehold interest to move with the leasehold. For it not to would raise a red flag inviting further investigation. And in this case, it sounds as if the red flag would be justified.