Network Rail owns f/r; problems re flats' leases

[shedbones]

Hi all,

Very complicated situation, I won't explain it all as it would take me all day.

We're a RMC managing our own block of 12 maisonettes. Network Rail appears to be our freeholder, but they have been unaware of us for years.

I am aware of the issues of operational railway.

We need to extend our leases (76 years), although ideally would rather have the freehold.

I was going to post a link to another thread of mine here, to give more details, but I've not got enough posts.

The Network Rail land has been carved up into leases and underleases over time. We own the headlease for our block. No ground rent demands since we bought the headlease.

We have managed to arrange a meeting with Network Rail in April after they informed me that "Although Network Rail do not have a direct relationship with you it would be useful to agree some steps forward."

If they are the freeholders of the land that we are on, then do they have a direct relationship with us when it comes to extending our leases or freehold purchase?

Even if other leases (as yet undetermined) stand between them and our headlease?

Is it Network Rail we should be negotiating with?

Thanks to Jeffrey for his earlier help. I'm looking for as much advice as possible, from anyone who thinks they can help!

[jeffrey]

If NR is not your L and the freehold reversioner:
a. who is each of those; and
b. what is the role of NR in this mess?

If you cannot ascertain who owns the f/r, there are 'unknown L' provisions: see s.26 and s.50 of 1993 Act (re f/r and lease extension, respectively).

[shedbones]

Thanks for your reply Jeffrey.

I don't know the answers to either of those questions for sure, and NR seems not to know for sure also.

However, Network Rail appears to be our freeholder because our block sits within the boundaries of a piece of land owned by them. The land registry title is theirs.

Network Rail has a relationship with a company called Acebench, through a long leasehold. It seems that Acebench may be our landlord, but Network Rail reports that they do not seem interested.

In the past, I have tried to communicate with Acebench myself, but to no avail.

If these are the parties involved, would our leases be extended by Acebench (as landlord) Or NR (as freeholder)?

[jeffrey]

You need specific legal advice to ascertain (ascertrain?) who owns what. Only then can you proceed.

[shedbones]

Any chance of going down the 'absent freeholder' route?

[jeffrey]

Any chance of going down the 'absent freeholder' route?
Yes. Even Beeching did not close it. Your solicitors can investigate title and explain use of the route. Have you not asked them to do so?

[sgclacy]

It strikes me that this will be complicated.

If 12 of you are involved and say the legal costs came to £5,000 thats £400 each. That is not a great deal and will save you personally a lot of time and hassle.

I have often noticed that within a group, one person takes on all the work and responsibilty and will save their share of the costs, but they have to work very hard and often receive little if any thanks from the others for their efforts

[shedbones]

Have temporarily suspended use of our solicitor until we absolutely have to - we just don't have the funds.

Years of neglect have resulted in major works sucking up all our money.

Getting the flat roof done at present will wipe out our sinking fund and financially cripple most of our flat owners.

I'm just trying to get to the point where I've done as much as I possibly can without racking up any more solicitor's fees.

When I know I can't take it any further myself, at least I can present the situation to the other 11, and tell them frankly that it will cost them money over and above their service charges to proceed any further.

[shedbones]

Only 9 posts, please see my 10th post which has the important link in it.

[shedbones]

OK, 10 posts - now I can add links, yay!

Please have a look at this if you have time. Our flats are referred to on page 6 as 194-216 Chancellor Court, and then again on the diagram on page 14.

http://www.sm-pa.co.uk/SMPA-Investment-ThorntonHeath.pdf

It states our flats were "sold off on a lease". This refers to the headlease that we bought 10 years ago.

Any more thoughts on who might be our landlord or freeholder after looking at this?

[thevaliant]

Network Rail has a relationship with a company called Acebench, through a long leasehold. It seems that Acebench may be our landlord, but Network Rail reports that they do not seem interested.

In the past, I have tried to communicate with Acebench myself, but to no avail.

If these are the parties involved, would our leases be extended by Acebench (as landlord) Or NR (as freeholder)?

You mention Acebench Limited - Company number 01640301

Did you write to the registered office at all, located in Preston?

[shedbones]

No, I haven't written to them.

Mmm...I spent some considerable time last night googling Acebench, and came up with interesting info and a general picture of them.

I've got all my land registry docs out again, and a Deed of Severance, which appears to be the key to this mess. Accordingly (if I've read it right), it seems that:

Network rail own the land,

They've long leased it to Acebench until 2087,

The lease is then vested in Padrino Properties for the residue of the term - does this mean Acebench have then leased it to Padrino?,

(Padrino have passed it on to someone else, I've tracked down their details),

The Deed then says: 'the reversion immediately expectant thereon is vested in Acebench.

Our leases expire in 2085, two years before Acebench's expires.

My questions are: Is it Acebench that we need to apply to for our lease extensions?

What about the freehold, does that remain with Network Rail as they still own the land?

Or would we apply to Acebench to try for the freehold?

Excuse any ignorance of definitions, Just an ordninary mum trying to wade through the sticky stuff!

Thank you for all and any help.

[thevaliant]

I think you'd apply to NR, but that might not help you as:

1. NR leased to Acebench, who may or may not have subleased to other parties? Who is your lease with?

Either way, if you acquired the freehold, you'd then be Acebench's lessor, leasing to them, who then lease to you!

I think you need a solicitor to sort this mess out. It may cost, but in the long run it'll probably be better for you all.

[jeffrey]

I agree. OP needs detailed legal advice. This forum is not the best place for that.

[jeffrey]

They've long leased it to Acebench until 2087,

The lease is then vested in Padrino Properties for the residue of the term - does this mean Acebench have then leased it to Padrino?,

(Padrino have passed it on to someone else, I've tracked down their details),

The Deed then says: 'the reversion immediately expectant thereon is vested in Acebench.
That does not make sense. If NR owns f/r, which company is proprietor of the uppermost leasehold reversion: Acebench, Padrino, or another?

[shedbones]

That does not make sense. If NR owns f/r, which company is proprietor of the uppermost leasehold reversion: Acebench, Padrino, or another?

After extensive research on Land Registry, I've found out that the title of our flat belongs to four other properties, listed as below, uppermost first:

Freehold with Network Rail Infrastructure, who have a long lease with:
Acebench, whose title includes our company, among others:
Our company, which includes all twelve flats:
Our flat

After a bit of digging on internet, found Acebench's phone number and spoke to them today.

The chap on the phone agreed that Acebench is our Landlord, and that we need to put the request to extend the leases in writing.

He wasn't sure about who we would try to purchase the freehold from, so I'll put that to NR next month at the meeting.

Haven't got a clue where Padrino fits into it, they're not mentioned on any of the titles.

Any advice on how to approach Acebench informally to start with?

[jeffrey]

Don't. Just serve s.13 Notice on NR and Acebench.

[shedbones]

Thanks Jeffrey, I feel it is much clearer now, and has probably saved us time, and money in solicitors fees.

[jeffrey]

Thanks Jeffrey, I feel it is much clearer now, and has probably saved us time, and money in solicitors fees.
Delighted to help. If Residents-owned company (RMC) owns underleasehold reversion, as your details suggest, RMC is each flat-owner's immediate L.
Perhaps RMC might be the best vehicle for the enfranchisement, assuming that all flat-owners:
a. contributed equally to RMC's formation costs; and
b. contribute equally to the enfranchisement costs.

[shedbones]

Yes, all flat-owners did contribute equally at formation, each flat has one share in the company.

However, not all flats feel that they have the finances to:
1. join in with a possible freehold purchase in the near future, or failing that,
2. finance their lease extension.

We have had positive responses from 7 out of the 12 flats, maybe one more, but she's unreliable.

If we go ahead with our lease extensions, those of us that are interested will do it in bulk to keep the costs down - hopefully.

By the way, 6 flats are one-bedroom, the other 6 are two-bedroom. Our leases states that the one bedrooms are liable for 5.55%, and the two-bedrooms are liable for 1.11% for 'tenants share of total expenditure'.

Would this apply to costs towards the freehold purchase or initial lease extension costs do you think?

[jeffrey]

1. As not all of the twelve leaseholders are participating, the participants should form a new no.2 company (limited by guarantee, not by shares).
2. That new co. will be their vehicle for enfranchisement. The existing no.1 co. will continue as the service-provider for all twelve flats.
3. The service charge % figures have no bearing on who pays what towards this exercise; keeping things equal is best (= one-seventh each).

[shedbones]

Thanks so much Jeffrey! You have been a fantastic help.:)

[shedbones]

OK, I'm going to reveal myself to be completely ignorant now with a different, but related question.

Our twelve flats collectively (our RMC) has a Title. Will there be a lease under our title number somewhere at Land Registry?

There was no paperwork passed to us at all after we formed ten years ago, and the guy who put the process through has long since disappeared.

[jeffrey]

If RMC acquired an estate in land (freehold or long leasehold), at some time since registration was made compulsory in your local Authority's area, yes- its title should be registered with its own title number. Have you no correspondence or copies showing that?

Frankly, I do rather feel that you are so far out of your depth that you and your neighbours are in need of some conveyancing guidance.

[shedbones]

No, no paperwork of any kind. We feel that we have been had over sideways, as other issues exist also.

Yes, you're right, we do need guidance, and will obviously need to pay for it, at some point. Just not now, as all money is taken up with impending new roof and pest eradication.

We had a subsidence claim a few years back too, so building insurance is sky high. Sigh.

Anyway, I'm just trying to keep the costs down by finding out as much as I can before we can afford to use a professional, hopefully in about a year's time.

Thanks for all your help Jeffrey, it's very kind of you.

[jeffrey]

As your leases have only 76yrs. unexpired, the cost of the exercise will rise yearly (and it will take months, in any case). Delay is a false economy.

[Markonee1]

OK, 10 posts - now I can add links, yay!

Please have a look at this if you have time. Our flats are referred to on page 6 as 194-216 Chancellor Court, and then again on the diagram on page 14.

http://www.sm-pa.co.uk/SMPA-Investment-ThorntonHeath.pdf

It states our flats were "sold off on a lease". This refers to the headlease that we bought 10 years ago.

Any more thoughts on who might be our landlord or freeholder after looking at this?

Follow this link and type in your postcode, and for example No 214 gives lease info and freehold info http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gfN1MTQwt381BD_2A3A0 8LT2cL49AwIwN_Y6B8JG55dyNKdBsYEqPbAAdwNCCgOxzkV_xu xycPch1IHo_9wal5-n4e-bmp-pH6UeYIkzyczIAmmbiZBzuZuBsbOBvph-gX5IaGRhhkBqRHOioCANc7aLQ!/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSmdvS1VRb0tVUSEvb0NvZ0FFSVFoakVDVUpSbUVBSU FuQmNFemdBIS9ZQTQ1NDUwLTVGMHN0eWowc3J5bndBISEvN19M RjU0MThHN1VIQjZGMEk0RjdTQjRHMzBDMi86cF9fXzY3L3NwZl 9BY3Rpb25OYW1lL3NwZl9BY3Rpb25MaXN0ZW5lci9zcGZfc3Ry dXRzQWN0aW9uLyEyZmluaXQyLmRv#7_LF5418G7UHB6F0I4F7S B4G30C2

[shedbones]

As your leases have only 76yrs. unexpired, the cost of the exercise will rise yearly (and it will take months, in any case). Delay is a false economy.

Yes, I am aware of that:) If all else fails and I can't get the other flat-owners on board financially, I shall probably go ahead and extend my own lease.

[shedbones]

Follow this link and type in your postcode, and for example No 214 gives lease info and freehold info http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gfN1MTQwt381BD_2A3A0 8LT2cL49AwIwN_Y6B8JG55dyNKdBsYEqPbAAdwNCCgOxzkV_xu xycPch1IHo_9wal5-n4e-bmp-pH6UeYIkzyczIAmmbiZBzuZuBsbOBvph-gX5IaGRhhkBqRHOioCANc7aLQ!/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSmdvS1VRb0tVUSEvb0NvZ0FFSVFoakVDVUpSbUVBSU FuQmNFemdBIS9ZQTQ1NDUwLTVGMHN0eWowc3J5bndBISEvN19M RjU0MThHN1VIQjZGMEk0RjdTQjRHMzBDMi86cF9fXzY3L3NwZl 9BY3Rpb25OYW1lL3NwZl9BY3Rpb25MaXN0ZW5lci9zcGZfc3Ry dXRzQWN0aW9uLyEyZmluaXQyLmRv#7_LF5418G7UHB6F0I4F7S B4G30C2

Thank you. I have spent the last couple of days pulling off title plans from Land Registry, and have also requested some relevant leases using the oc2 form.

[jeffrey]

If ordering leases, try online: cheaper than via hard-copy OC2.

[shedbones]

Thanks Jeffrey, I couldn't figure out where online to order from. Is it still LR?

[jeffrey]

Thanks Jeffrey, I couldn't figure out where online to order from. Is it still LR?
Yes, but via the awfully complicated new Portal.

[shedbones]

Yes, but via the awfully complicated new Portal.

They've hidden it well! Are you able to give me a clue?

[jeffrey]

They've hidden it well! Are you able to give me a clue?
Start at HMLR's general website: http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/
I agree that there's no visible links to Portal. Send e-mail to HMLR ('contact us') and all will be revealed!

[shedbones]

Ok, thanks Jeffrey.

Now, while I'm waiting for LR to get back to me, would be kind enough to explain what co-terminus leasehold interest means?

I know I'm out of my depth, but I'm determined to stitch as much of it together myself before I dump it on the solicitor, and I'm trying to understand the relationships between some of the titles involved.

[jeffrey]

'Co-terminous' means 'of the same length, starting/ending on the same date as each other'. In what context did the expression appear?

[shedbones]

We're linked to a big office block. We were on the same lease as the office block (lease A), but 10 years ago, we were removed from that title, and set up our RMC.

Then we appeared on the title of another lease (lease B) belonging to Acebench. I only found this out after much nosing around on LR.

Lease B has to abide by lease A, and many of the same business units are on both titles.

The quote below is referring to the office block, the one in the link earlier in this thread.

'The property is held on a long leasehold basis
from British Rail Properties for a term of 120 years
from 18th December 1967 (expiry 17th Dec 2087).
The subject interest for sale is an intermediate
leasehold interest which has been created and is
owned by Acebench Limited on a co-terminus
basis minus 2 days.'

Does any of that make any sense?

[jeffrey]

From which document is the quote extracted? Not HMLR entries, I think.

[shedbones]

Page 6, under Tenure.

http://www.sm-pa.co.uk/SMPA-Investment-ThorntonHeath.pdf

That piece of info is a few years old now, but I think it is essentially the same. Googling seems to point to it now being (maybe, possibly-still working on that bit) in the hands of the receivers.

Unless I'm reading this all wrong on the link below, paragraphs 4 & 5.

http://xcm.co.uk/news.asp

[jeffrey]

So not very authoritative, then.

[shedbones]

So not very authoritative, then.

No, not at all.

However, just got some of my requested documents back from LR (very speedy service), and have discovered that the Acebench lease is an Overriding Lease (slopes off to google overriding leases).

I can see that I will need to request at least a couple of other documents from LR, but I feel that I have many of the pieces needed to get an overall picture.

[jeffrey]

"Overriding lease" is a colloquialism that usually means a reversionary lease.
For example:
a. F grants lease i to T for 99yrs.; and
b. L thereafter grants lease ii (out of freehold reversion) to X for 99yrs. + 3 days.
The result is just as if:
a. F had grants lease ii to X; and
b. X thereafter grants lease i to T.

[shedbones]

Ok, yes, that makes sense looking at the info I've gathered so far. Thank you.

[jeffrey]

Just noticed a slight error in my post #42: the reference to 'L' meant 'F'. Sorry!

[shedbones]

Finally feel that we are putting together the jigsaw pieces involved in extending our leases.

Land Registry have been helpful in clearing up some of the confusion, as has Jeffrey.

We will shortly be taking our case to a solicitor, but I'm hoping to get some advice here on the following questions.

a. 3 or possibly 4 flat owners in our block of 12 will be clubbing together to extend our leases at the same time. Our individual leases (lease A) are presently due to expire on 25/12/2085.

b. The Headlease (lease B) for the block is due to expire on 18/12/2087.

c. We also have another landlord between us and our freeholder, Network Rail. This intermediate landlord's lease (lease C) is due to expire 19/12/2087.

d. Network Rail have confirmed we will need to extend directly with them, as leases B and C will become shorter than ours after the extension.

My questions are:
What effect will our lease extensions have on,
1. The Headlease for our block (lease B),
2. The intermediate landlord's lease (lease C),
...and could these in-between leases affect the cost of our lease extensions?

What would our relationship with lease B and lease C be after our extension?

All help gratefully received...

[jeffrey]

It's far too complex for an adequate LZ reply, as I think you already know. If the lease of your immediate L (IL) is insufficient to permit IL to grant your extensions, you'l need to involve IL's L- and so on, until you reach a competent long-leaseholder (or, if none, the freehold reversioner).

[Gordon999]

1. Send your problem to New Housing Minister thro' your local MP and demand a written reply.

2. Better to get together with other flats to collectively buy the freehold and extend the leases to 999 years.

[Moderator1]

Two threads by the same member have been merged here. Please do not start a new thread if you merely wish to continue a previous discussion or report on subsequent developments. It can cause unnecessary confusion (quite apart from losing the connection with facts previously established or legal points previously explained).

[shedbones]

Two threads by the same member have been merged here. Please do not start a new thread if you merely wish to continue a previous discussion or report on subsequent developments. It can cause unnecessary confusion (quite apart from losing the connection with facts previously established or legal points previously explained).

Ok, noted, thank you.

[shedbones]

1. Send your problem to New Housing Minister thro' your local MP and demand a written reply.

2. Better to get together with other flats to collectively buy the freehold and extend the leases to 999 years.

Thanks for your reply.

We had a meeting recently with Network Rail and they have said they won't sell us the freehold - operational railway land.

We can't afford to build a case arguing our distance from the track.

Have considered local MP, and might resort to that at some point down the line, depending how it goes. At this point don't want to antagonise Network Rail unecessarily.

[jeffrey]

New Housing Minister.
He is called Grant Shapps, if you're interested: see http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2010-05-13-Grant-Shapps-named-new-Housing-Minister

[shedbones]

Thank you Jeffrey:)

[shedbones]

Still trapped in the nightmare that is our lease extension....

Anyway, have managed to piece together much of the jigsaw that involves the carve-up of the piece of Network Rail land that our block of flats stands on.

Have now got a solicitor on the case and yesterday the valuer dropped by to take a look at all the relevant paperwork. Both have agreed it is a complex case and the valuer is concerned about one particular missing piece.

Here goes....

Eleven years ago the twelve flatowners of our block formed a RMC and paid £5k for the headlease interest for the block.

Now, on the Title Register for our block, the lease that it refers to as being our lease, is still the superior lease. This superior lease refers to the whole of the estate of offices etc and our block only gets a brief mention.

Now, I'm under the impression that our block should have a sublease that is supplemental to the superior lease. Does that sound right?

Is it possible that a piece of paperwork, or a registration was omitted during the process at some point?

As we were offered, and bought, the headlease interest, should we have been granted a new lease supplemental to the superior lease?

Any help gratefully received.

[Moderator1]

Two threads by the same member have been merged here. Please do not start a new thread if you merely wish to continue a previous discussion or report on subsequent developments. It can cause unnecessary confusion (quite apart from losing the connection with facts previously established or legal points previously explained).

[shedbones]

OK, sorry

Wasn't fully aware of thread etiquette - am now:)

Is anyone able to answer my last query about the headlease and superior lease?

[jeffrey]

Is anyone able to answer my last query about the headlease and superior lease?
Possibly not, as the problem seems too complex for a website's posters to resolve. You need legal advice in detail, don't you?

[shedbones]

Possibly not, as the problem seems too complex for a website's posters to resolve. You need legal advice in detail, don't you?

Yes, absolutely, that is something we are working on right now.

Unfortunately, we have frittered away a couple of thousand pounds on one high profile firm of solicitors only to get no further after a year.

Found another solicitor who is willing to work with us, but I'm unsure if he will be able to unravel the complexities of our case.

I've googled property lawyers, but found it difficult to pin a local one down that might have the expertise to move our case forward.

All the information gathered so far has been from my own investigations, and I suspect that we wouldn't have got this far if it weren't for my tenacity.

I was kind of hoping that my question:
'As we were offered, and bought, the headlease interest, should we have been granted a new lease supplemental to the superior lease?' could be asked, and answered, in a general way.

By that I mean, in general terms, if a headlease interest was purchased out of a superior lease, would that headlease interest usually have its own new and separate lease which would still be supplemental to the superior lease?

It's not that I'm trying to do this all on my own to circumvent all costs, but as this whole thing has progressed, it has become clear that my input has given the professionals valuable clues as to what happened to this piece of land eleven years ago.

I care deeply about sorting this mess out, for myself and the other eleven flatowners and am determined to see it through. I see part of that as about keeping the costs as low as possible:)

Apologies for going on and on.....can anyone help with the above question?

[leaseholdanswers]

I deal with this sort of issue from time to time. You need, in addition to the lawyer a surveyor with an understanding of title and plans to actually work out what is what, so the leases make sense. Actually seeing the land is much better than looking at plans.

Yes re missing entries. on a trip to the land registry to check on obligations between three freeholdowners on which two buildings stand, almost a whole page detailing "rights and use" in simple terms, that should have been on the register had been omitted. The originals were retrieved and were actually marked for inclusion and had just been filed away!

[jeffrey]

By that I mean, in general terms, if a headlease interest was purchased out of a superior lease, would that headlease interest usually have its own new and separate lease which would still be supplemental to the superior lease?
Are you asking "If someone who owns a lease grants an underlease out of it, would each one be the subject of a separate deed and separate registered title?" If so, yes.
OR
Are you asking "If someone who owns a freehold reversion (subject to a lease) grants a new lease superior to that lease, would each one be the subject of a separate deed and separate registered title?" If so, again yes.
In both cases, the result is the same: the f/r is subject to a Head Lease itself subject to an underlease.

This, in turn, brings us back to what we've already asked of you: How many tiers of ownership are there, which one is yours, and what's your question?

[shedbones]

Thank you both so much.


Are you asking "If someone who owns a lease grants an underlease out of it, would each one be the subject of a separate deed and separate registered title?" If so, yes.


That one - I think.

August 1998 - Leaseholder A (the holder of the superior lease from the freeholder), sold their interest in all their property on their superior lease to another party, BUT retained their interest in our block of flats.

February 1999 - Leaseholder A then offered us, as the RMC (Leaseholder B), the headlease interest in our block of flats, for which we paid £5k.

Question: Should we, Leaseholder B, have been granted a new and separate deed as our lease?

[jeffrey]

1. August 1998 - Leaseholder A (the holder of the superior lease from the freeholder), sold their interest in all their property on their superior lease to another party, BUT retained their interest in our block of flats.

2. February 1999 - Leaseholder A then offered us, as the RMC (Leaseholder B), the headlease interest in our block of flats, for which we paid £5k.

3. Question: Should we, Leaseholder B, have been granted a new and separate deed as our lease?
1. How could A sell [the] interest in all [the] property on [the] superior lease to another party if it retained [the] interest in [the] block of flats?
2a. Did you buy-out A's leasehold reversion?
2b. What estate or interest do you think that A retained thereafter?
3. If 'yes' to 2a, you stepped into A's shoes; so you are holding whatever lease A sold to you. No new and separate...lease is needed.

[shedbones]

1. A 'Transfer of Part' took place in August 1998.

Definitions and interpretation in this transfer:

a. 'the Transferor' (Leaseholder A)

b. 'the Transferee' (another party, let's call them C)

c. 'the Property' shall mean ALL THAT Leasehold property situate at and known as AMBASSADOR HOUSE 1-9 BRIGSTOCK ROAD (the office block) CHANCELLOR COURT 194 TO 216 BENSHAM MANOR ROAD THORNTON HEATH (our block of flats) in the London Borough of the Croydon being the land registered at HM Land Registry with Absolute Title under Title Number SGL63500 and more particularly described in the Registered Lease but excluding the Retained Land as defined herein and shown for identification purposes only edged red on the attached Plan. (The land edged in red is a very large piece of land containing all the property).

d. 'the Registered Lease' shall mean the lease dated the sixth day of May 1968 and made between British Railways Board (1) and Samuel Properties (2)

e. 'the Retained Land' shall mean the remainder of the Transferor's (Leaseholder A's) Land and shown for identification purposes only edged blue on the attached Plan. (The property referred to here and edged in blue is our block of flats and lies within the land edged in red. This property has its own title number SGL603393)

TRANSFER
IN CONSIDERATION of the transfer hereinafter contained and of £XXXXXXXXX paid by the Transferree to the Transferor (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) the Transferor with Full Title Guarantee HEREBY TRANSFERS to the Transferee the Property for the residue of the term granted by the Registered Lease SUBJECT TO all encumbrances and to the leases referred to in the Schedule of Leases to title number SGL63500 TOGETHER WITH........ ...then loads of other stuff.

So, in August 1998 there's this Transfer of Part, where our block SGL603393 was retained by the Transferor (Leaseholder A), and then in February 1999 Leaseholder A offered us 12 flatowners the Headlease interest for SGL603393.

We formed our RMC, paid £5k and received a completion statement in September 1999.

Question: Should SGL603393, our block, have a separate lease particular to our title number?

At present the lease relating to our block SGL603393 is the same lease that relates to the land that was transferred to the Transferee (C), SGL63500

[jeffrey]

(Sigh) So L did not sell [the] interest in all [the] property on [the] superior lease to another party! It retained your part. Why did you not tell us so?
Your part is NOT now in the same title as the part sold-off; it might have been at first, but now see:
a. references (in its Property Register) to area(s) edged green on its title plan; and
b. the green edging on the title plan, where marked 'SGL63500'.

[shedbones]

I though that I had:confused:


August 1998 - Leaseholder A (the holder of the superior lease from the freeholder), sold their interest in all their property on their superior lease to another party, BUT retained their interest in our block of flats.

Perhaps I worded it wrong.

I know our part is NOT now in the same title as the part sold-off.

BUT both parts still have the same lease - the lease for SGL63500.

What I need to know is: Should SGL603393, our block, have a separate lease for our own title number?

[jeffrey]

BUT both parts still have the same lease - the lease for SGL63500.

What I need to know is: Should SGL603393, our block, have a separate lease for our own title number?
No. Yet again: it might have been created as a single lease but that's been split. Each part has its own title number.
For how it works on severance/apportionment, see post #25 on http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=234417#post234417.

[shedbones]

Mmmm.....ok, had a look at that, thank you.

Are you saying that even though we bought the headlease interest to our block, our lease CAN still be the same lease as the sold-off portion?

Our flats had yet to be built when this lease was originally created, and are mentioned in name only.

Neither our block as a whole, or our individual 12 flat's titles appear on the title of the sold off-portion's schedule of notices of leases, nor they on ours.

A severence deed in 2002 formally apportioned ground rent between us and the sold-off portion, so that bit is clear.

[jeffrey]

The lease can encompass two or more separate/separable areas. That's what I've explained, at least four times.

I've now had enough of your re-asking the same question endlessly.

[shedbones]

OK, well thanks for trying.

I am aware I have tested your patience Jeffrey.

Your reaction is obviously due to the vast chasm in understanding of property law that lies between a layman like myself and you, a professional.

As I found it a struggle to pin down straight answers in your replies, I attempted to clarify what you were saying - or not saying.

Oh well, never mind - at least I tried.

For anyone that's interested, I'll post an update as our lease extension lurches forward.

Perhaps it'll help some other poor soul in the future.:)