H.P Â Â 10 #13 Posted June 30, 2014 There would always be a Land Registry fee to transfer ownership of the freehold to you, I would expect there to be a further fee to deal with the merger of the leasehold and freehold titles. I don't think as long as it's done properly merging the 2 titles is an issue really, it just isn't really necessary. Good luck with your building works! Thanks, we didn't ever think it would be so difficult to sort out but we got there in the end. One thing I do know is I'll never touch another leasehold property again (if we ever move) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #14 Posted July 3, 2014 Not sure on the reversion bit, but property law isn't my thing. During the last couple of years several of my neighbours have done the same. Leaseholder** wanted ridiculous amounts of money for consent letters, it actually worked out cheaper to employ a solicitor and buy the leasehold** from him. I'm also guessing we are merging the titles given a fee to land registry for this is itemised on my bill. Either way it's making my life much simpler and my building work can now commence ** No, the neighbours ARE most likely already the leaseholders. What they'll be buying is the freehold reversion.  ---------- Post added 03-07-2014 at 17:19 ----------  There would always be a Land Registry fee to transfer ownership of the freehold to you, I would expect there to be a further fee to deal with the merger of the leasehold and freehold titles. I don't think as long as it's done properly merging the 2 titles is an issue really, it just isn't really necessary. No, there's no fee for merger IF it's at the same time as a purchase is being registered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
babyalex1 Â Â 10 #15 Posted July 3, 2014 Would you generally opt to merge then Jeffrey? assuming title's were registered, no mortgage etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #16 Posted July 14, 2014 Would you generally opt to merge then Jeffrey? assuming title's were registered, no mortgage etc... Yes, usually, unless there are contra-indications in the title documentation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mouserat   10 #17 Posted July 15, 2014 When we looked into buying our freehold, we were advised against merging the leasehold and freehold, because there were certain easements (rights of way through the back) that applied specifically to "leaseholders". Although whether anyone in practice would bother checking our status as we wheeled our bin out is debatable. Perhaps it's something like that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #18 Posted July 21, 2014 When we looked into buying our freehold, we were advised against merging the leasehold and freehold, because there were certain easements (rights of way through the back) that applied specifically to "leaseholders". Yes. Merger should be considered only if it's possible to re-create freehold easements identical to the leasehold ones. And that depends on whether the freehold reversion vendor still owns the areas over which the easements exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #19 Posted September 23, 2014 Yes. As long as V owns both estates, P buys the property as if it were a simple freehold**. Non-merger can be for various reasons. Here are some: 1. The leasehold was not yet registered at HMLR when its owner enfranchised. 2. The leasehold was in mortgage when its owner enfranchised and did not involve the mortgagee. 3. The leasehold and freehold reversion are not in exactly the same names or held in exactly the same way. ** To clarify: the Transfer to P would still need to cover- and explicitly mention title to- both estates, not merely the freehold reversion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...