Jump to content

Coppen Estates. . . .Sheffield

Recommended Posts

yes ... the bill for two houses comes to our address ... I think it is fairly traditional (for Coppen/Sheffield). The invoice lists both addresses, but is addressed to just mine.

 

The house next door is rented and the landlady is a bit of a nightmare, so rather than mess about demanding my £3 it is easier for me just to pay it. What's really funny is that they describe their house as freehold because they do not pay any lease lol (the previous owner also paid for both houses)

Edited by mc55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less than 70 years means it's going to be expensive. Anything below 80 years begins to factor in the "marriage value", which ramps up the bill quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffREy, I think mine has less than 70 years left - it is also with Coppen - is it the same process to request extension or purchasing freehold ? I currently pay £6 a year for my house and the house next door.

 

You pay for the house next door?

 

yes ... the bill for two houses comes to our address ... I think it is fairly traditional (for Coppen/Sheffield). The invoice lists both addresses, but is addressed to just mine.

 

The house next door is rented and the landlady is a bit of a nightmare, so rather than mess about demanding my £3 it is easier for me just to pay it. What's really funny is that they describe their house as freehold because they do not pay any lease lol (the previous owner also paid for both houses)

Explanation:

1. Original builder/lessor (L) presumably granted one lease but it included two houses.

2. Let's say that L granted it to T.

3. Then T sells-off one house (to T1), whilst retaining the other house.

4. L still collects only a single rent and does not usually recognise the split which will have apportioned the rent so that each property contributes 50%.

5. In practice, T1 pays it all to L BUT has the right to make T1 pay 50% to T (an 'equitable' or informal apportionment, because it's not legally binding on L).

6. Then T sells-off the other house (to T2). T2 steps into T's shoes

-And you're T2 in that example.

 

Both you and T1 have the same enfranchisement rights as if you'd held separate leases. Both houses are indeed still leasehold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes ... the bill for two houses comes to our address ... I think it is fairly traditional (for Coppen/Sheffield). The invoice lists both addresses, but is addressed to just mine.

 

The house next door is rented and the landlady is a bit of a nightmare, so rather than mess about demanding my £3 it is easier for me just to pay it. What's really funny is that they describe their house as freehold because they do not pay any lease lol (the previous owner also paid for both houses)

 

I'm not a property expert but ... that sounds very weird. If I were you I'd pay only your own ground rent, and let Coppen know pretty bluntly that they can sort out their own problems getting payment off your neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a property expert but ... that sounds very weird. If I were you I'd pay only your own ground rent, and let Coppen know pretty bluntly that they can sort out their own problems getting payment off your neighbour.

No, your "advice" is quite wrong and potentially misleading.

If mc55's ownership derives from 'T2' in my example, Coppen as L is fully entitled:

a. to collect the entire rent from mc55; and

b. not to recognise the equitable apportionment.

 

So please post only what you know to be accurate. You do admit to not being an expert...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently having a horrible time with Coppen estates.

 

He is charging me £45 a year as an insurance fee because I am not using Royal and Sun Alliance as my insurance company (even though I am using their own company, More Than!).

 

Whenever I phone him, he takes enormous pride in being intentionally vague answering any question I have about how to avoid this fine.

 

I am currently going through the motions of filling in a "form of notice of cover" to try and avoid this cost. The only advice he had to give was that they would accept it, no questions asked, but if I ever go to sell the house, they will look into them and if I have made any mistakes on the form, I will be charged, possibly resulting in a whopping bill.

 

I suppose it doesn't matter, but I don't have a friendly word to say about this company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a "fine" but just a consent fee.

If you want advice about a person's demands, asking that person is scarcely a good way forwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a "fine" but just a consent fee.

If you want advice about a person's demands, asking that person is scarcely a good way forwards!

 

Heh, yes - I am very naive when it comes to all this and was a bit worked up. It is horrible being lumped with these fees/fines/charges.

 

I was just kind of hoping we could work it out, but will have to use a solicitor I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only advice he had to give was that they would accept it, no questions asked, but if I ever go to sell the house, they will look into them and if I have made any mistakes on the form, I will be charged, possibly resulting in a whopping bill."

 

A thoroughly disreputable way of behaving - basically they try to scare you, or the person buying your house that there is some kind of 'fine' outstanding on the property and the sale will fall through. It's not for them to decide if there are mistakes, but for a tribunal, but they'll never take it that far because it costs everyone involved far more than the £45 in dispute. They rely on people wanting a quiet life and coughing up.

 

What a racket!

 

and as for accepting it 'no questions asked', I've already sent two strongly worded letters trying to get them to acknowledge a notice of cover form. I'm fully expecting the bogus charge to be on my next invoice for ground rent.

 

Currently counting down to when I can buy the freehold and have shot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that all these people seem to have problems with Coppen. They own the freehold on my house & although my solicitor sent them notice of the transfer of the lease when I bought the house (2years ago) they have never once been in touch. Not even to acknowledge the sale of the house, never mind ask for the £1.50 (75p payable twice a year!) ground rent or demand any "fees".

 

The previous owner said she had the same issue for the 5 years she had the house & that the owner of the end house paid for the block of 4 every year. She had to pay for indemnity insurance as she had no proof that the ground rent was paid up, which she cannot now get returned to her as Coppen have still not replied to any correspondence!

 

I dread the day I decide to buy the freehold, I can imagine the problems that will ensue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Count yourself lucky Watchcoll!

 

Could be that your lease doesn't have covenants in it regarding insurance, alterations, the rearing of pigs or prohibiting the serving of pikelets* so on there's nothing for Coppen to go at.

 

Not that that usually stops them! There's no mention of an insurance fee in my lease (just that the property should be insured to 3/4ths of it's value - I wonder what my mortgage company would make of that) yet Coppen generously interpret this has them being able to direct my insurance or charge a consent fee. In my last letter I told them to have a closer read and think about what a tribunal might conclude. I don't expect they bothered.

 

*someone I know had this is their lease - I wonder if Coppen have a pikelet serving hatch inspector at hand to serve fines upon recalcitrant leaseholders?

 

---------- Post added 23-09-2015 at 13:42 ----------

 

"I am not using Royal and Sun Alliance as my insurance company (even though I am using their own company, More Than!"

 

Oh yeah, that reminds me, when we got our stuff through from Copppen regarding RSA there was a code to quote to RSA over the phone when buying the insurance. In other words to make sure Coppen got some kind of commission on the insurance - which I'd guess is roughly..erm...around...£45?

 

It's legitimate, of course, but totally spivvy.

 

I wonder what would happen if you insured with RSA anyway without their special code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has all those clauses. I am not allowed to boil tripe or bake bricks in my back garden. I must have adequate insurance, enough to cover the rebuilding of the house, & be able to prove I have insurance. I was all ready & waiting for Coppen to try & charge me an insurance fee but I've had zero correspondance from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.