Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

Victorian House Is Freehold But Subject To A Lease?

Recommended Posts

What I don't understand is why the vendor's solicitors are so reluctant to have the lease removed. I don't think it's by any means an unreasonable request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, willdervish said:

What I don't understand is why the vendor's solicitors are so reluctant to have the lease removed. I don't think it's by any means an unreasonable request.

Very time consuming as I have a similar situation with a piece of land that I own which has a lease on half of it from 1852. 
I am the freeholder and the lease was not registered with the land registry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mafya said:

Very time consuming as I have a similar situation with a piece of land that I own which has a lease on half of it from 1852. 
I am the freeholder and the lease was not registered with the land registry. 

Interesting. Are you trying to have the lease removed? Is it expensive to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, willdervish said:

Thanks @Jeffrey Shaw - your input is very much appreciated! Here's exactly what it says on the Title Register (with names and address redacted), in case that makes things any clearer:

 

A: Property Register

This register describes the land and estate comprised in the title.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE : SHEFFIELD

1 (27.03.1986) The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above Title filed at the Registry and being THE PROPERTY, Sheffield.

 

B: Proprietorship Register

This register specifies the class of title and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the right of disposal.

Title absolute

1 (04.07.1989) Proprietor: VENDOR 1 and VENDOR 2 his

wife, both of THE PROPERTY, Sheffield, S Yorkshire.

 

C Charges Register

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

1 Lease dated 2 September 1899 to VICTORIAN CHAP for 800 years from 25 March 1899

NOTE: The lease comprises also other land

End of register

OK. So if the Property Register refers to only this house and if the Charges Register omits any reference to a leasehold title number, it seems likely that  the vendors own:

a. a registered freehold reversion; plus

b. an unregistered leasehold.

 

Unless they can deliver ownership of the latter, DO NOT BUY. As to your post #1, where you say that

The estate agent says this sort of arrangement is common in Sheffield and that I shouldn't worry. My solicitor, on the other hand, is adamant that the lease needs to be removed or merged with the freehold title. She's requested the lease from the vendor's solicitors but as far as I know they still haven't sent it.

I think that the EA must be wrong and that your solicitor must be right.

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, willdervish said:

Interesting. Are you trying to have the lease removed? Is it expensive to do so?

The part of the land that has a leasehold has rights of way running over it so I could never build on it so I have purchased the land as I needed the part without leasehold on it and have left it. Solicitor says in a few years we can apply to have rather lease removed and that it will be a lengthy process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

OK. So if the Property Register refers to only this house and if the Charges Register omits any reference to a leasehold title number, it seems likely that  the vendors own:

a. a registered freehold reversion; plus

b. an unregistered leasehold.

 

Unless they can deliver ownership of the latter, DO NOT BUY. As to your post #1, where you say that

The estate agent says this sort of arrangement is common in Sheffield and that I shouldn't worry. My solicitor, on the other hand, is adamant that the lease needs to be removed or merged with the freehold title. She's requested the lease from the vendor's solicitors but as far as I know they still haven't sent it.

I think that the EA must be wrong and that your solicitor must be right.

Thank you, Jeffrey. Not exactly what I wanted to hear, but there we are!

 

To complicate things further: yesterday I downloaded the title register for what I thought was the house next door (number 49), just in case they were covered by the same lease. What I got was an identical title register, with the same title number. So the freehold seems to cover number 51 (the address of the house I'm trying to buy) and number 49. The EA mentioned that the property was once a corner shop, so maybe number 51 was the shop and number 49 was a dwelling? I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, willdervish said:

Thank you, Jeffrey. Not exactly what I wanted to hear, but there we are!

 

To complicate things further: yesterday I downloaded the title register for what I thought was the house next door (number 49), just in case they were covered by the same lease. What I got was an identical title register, with the same title number. So the freehold seems to cover number 51 (the address of the house I'm trying to buy) and number 49. The EA mentioned that the property was once a corner shop, so maybe number 51 was the shop and number 49 was a dwelling? I have no idea.

I've read this with interest.

Has anyone (present owners included) ever paid the Lease / ground rent to anyone else? on this property and if so to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, willdervish said:

Thank you, Jeffrey. Not exactly what I wanted to hear, but there we are!

 

To complicate things further: yesterday I downloaded the title register for what I thought was the house next door (number 49), just in case they were covered by the same lease. What I got was an identical title register, with the same title number. So the freehold seems to cover number 51 (the address of the house I'm trying to buy) and number 49. The EA mentioned that the property was once a corner shop, so maybe number 51 was the shop and number 49 was a dwelling? I have no idea.

As before, I cannot say. I would not guess. That's why you're paying solicitors to deal with it all.

But often a lease might originally demise > 1 property; and almost always a freehold reversionary title will include >1 property.

14 hours ago, mafya said:

Solicitor says in a few years we can apply to have rather lease removed and that it will be a lengthy process. 

No.

If you buy a leasehold house, you acquire- after two years- a right to purchase the f/r.

But there's no reciprocal provision that- if you buy only the f/r- you acquire a right to wipe out the lease!

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all. The seller's solicitors have refused to budge on the lease, so I've been forced to withdraw from the purchase. Ultimately I feel sorry for the vendor, as this will surely come up again with the next buyer. Thanks to all of you (and especially @Jeffrey Shaw) for your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you talked to the vendor, are they aware their solicitor scuppered the sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, willdervish said:

Hello all. The seller's solicitors have refused to budge on the lease, so I've been forced to withdraw from the purchase. Ultimately I feel sorry for the vendor, as this will surely come up again with the next buyer. Thanks to all of you (and especially @Jeffrey Shaw) for your input.

My pleasure! The thing to remember is that handy Latin motto Nemo dat quod non habet, as we say in the biz.

(Roughly, it means that you can't sell what you don't own)

 

If the vendor (V) cannot show title to the leasehold, perhaps the error stems from when V first purchased; and perhaps V's predecessor inadvertently retained the still-missing leasehold. Either way, I'm happier that you didn't buy into a problem than if you'd asked about a problem already acquired!

3 hours ago, geared said:

Have you talked to the vendor, are they aware their solicitor scuppered the sale?

Better question: did that solicitor act when V first purchased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a Victorian house in Sheffield which had a similar 800 year lease.

Coming from down south, I was unfamiliar with leasehold houses, so I purchased the freehold.

However, I was rather surprised that after doing that, the house was classed as being freehold and leasehold!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.