MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
As title really I am after some help/advice please.
We are buying a repossessed house, so far everything seems to be going quite smoothly.
Yesterday I received a copy of the title documents with a covering letter form my solicitor.
In the letter she states the house is both freehold and leasehold and that most of the document is now no longer applicable as the property is now freehold there are still various rights which are still applicable to the property such as right of maintenance of the boundary and walls.
There are also various others too.
She has gone on to say that she will be applying for a merger? of the Freehold and lease hold at completion.
Has anyone come across this before and is it something we should be worried about?
Are we still liable for the annual charges laid out in the lease?
many thanks
Our property is leasehold on an estate of 99 but all the residents lumped together and bought the freehold.
It means that the appointed directors of the leasehold company (i.e the residents we nominate at the AGM) can make decisions on our behalf for day to day running but we also have a say once a year at the AGM.
We still pay service charges as the communal grounds need to be managed and there are a lot of shared areas and roofs.
In theory our property is leasehold but we also own a share of the freehold.
How is the rest of your street made up?
England belongs to the Queen.
"Freehold" is a land interest carved out of what the Queen owns, but you don't have any (feudal) obligations to the Queen as a result of holding the land (you hold it free).
"Leasehold" is a land interest carved out of a freehold. As a leaseholder you owe the obligations contained in the lease to the freeholder owner (paying rent and giving it back at the end of the lease, amongst other things).
The same bit of land will often have a freehold interest (what the landlord owns) and a leasehold interest (held by the tenant). The leasehold interest can (usually) be sold.
If the person who owns the freehold also ends up owning the leasehold, the distinction between the two is irrelevant, so the Land Registry will merge the two interests, and you'll end up with just the freehold.
Does that make sense?
Erm sort of I guess.(just got up after a 12 hour night shift and the coffee hasnt kicked in yet !! :mrgreen:)