Residential Freehold/Leasehold purchase

[Mediaturtle]

Hello everyone,

I'd appreciate your insights on the following matter: We currently own a leasehold property with a long-term lease (1000 years from 1982). It's a typical 1930s terrace house, part of a development where the original developer, The Warner Company, retained the freehold title to each property. Under this arrangement, each leaseholder paid ground rent to the head leaseholder. The head lease has since been sold to another company specializing in acquiring leases and freeholds, which now holds the head lease. We've been in touch with both the management company responsible for the underlease and the freeholder holding the head lease, and both are open to selling.

Given that both the head lease and underlease were drafted in 1928, they include typical restrictions regarding maintenance, ground rent, and prohibited uses that may cause nuisance. However, in the registry form, the solicitor of the transferor has listed a to me bizarre provision that reads:

"12.2.4 The right to build on, develop, and/or alter all or any part of the Retained Land even if that building or development reduces the access of light or air to the Property."

This clause isn't present in the original deed, and the term "Retained Land" is concerning. What exactly is being retained here? Our primary reason for considering purchasing the freehold is to avoid the complexities of seeking landlord consents for any extensions or developments we may want to undertake on the property. Would acquiring these leases ensure this, or could we still be subject to hidden rights implied in the ancestral wording of these agreements?

Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

[atticus]

You need to look at the document from which that extract is taken. That should identify the "Retained Land".

An educated guess is that at that time the seller - presumably the Warner Company - sold houses out of a larger parcel of land that it owned, with the land that it had not yet sold being the Retained Land, on which it then built more houses.

You need to investigate that, and find out whether anyone still has the benefit of the right reserved by that clause.

[Mediaturtle]

Hello everyone,

I'd appreciate your insights on the following matter: We currently own a leasehold property with a long-term lease (1000 years from 1982). It's a typical 1930s terrace house, part of a development where the original developer, The Warner Company, retained the freehold title to each property. Under this arrangement, each leaseholder paid ground rent to the head leaseholder. The head lease has since been sold to another company specializing in acquiring leases and freeholds, which now holds the head lease. We've been in touch with both the management company responsible for the underlease and the freeholder holding the head lease, and both are open to selling.

Given that both the head lease and underlease were drafted in 1928, they include typical restrictions regarding maintenance, ground rent, and prohibited uses that may cause nuisance. However, in the registry form, the solicitor of the transferor has listed a to me bizarre provision that reads:

"12.2.4 The right to build on, develop, and/or alter all or any part of the Retained Land even if that building or development reduces the access of light or air to the Property."

This clause isn't present in the original deed, and the term "Retained Land" is concerning. What exactly is being retained here? Our primary reason for considering purchasing the freehold is to avoid the complexities of seeking landlord consents for any extensions or developments we may want to undertake on the property. Would acquiring these leases ensure this, or could we still be subject to hidden rights implied in the ancestral wording of these agreements?

Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Dear Atticus,

Thank you for your comment.

I'll be initiating an inquiry with the solicitor representing the leaseholders and will keep this thread updated on the progress.

[atticus]

Thank you.

It was not necessary to quote your opening post!

[Mediaturtle]

Dear all,

Further to my previous post I have managed to establish the following:

There are three agreements in place in respect to the ownership of the property:

1. An 'Underlease' from 1982 made between (1) Warner Estate Limited and (2) a private individual registered against title X. This is the agreement we are now in as leaseholders.
2. A 'Headlease' from 1927 and made between (1) Sir Thomas Courtenay Theydon Warner and (2) Warner Estates Limited registered against the same title X as the 'Underlease'.
3. There is also a 'Superior Landlord' that holds a different title XX for a large piece of land - referred to as 'Retained land' - a piece of which is the land 'our' property sits on.

The clause that I started the thread for ie "12.2.4 The right to build on, develop, and/or alter all or any part of the Retained Land even if that building or development reduces the access of light or air to the Property." is not to be seen neither on the underlease nor the headlease which I have both now reviewed.

I've reached out to the Superior Landlord, who has presented us with an offer to sell the Freehold Interest. My current concern revolves around ensuring a smooth process for acquiring complete ownership of both the land and property without being bound by any ambiguously phrased obligations outlined in the existing agreements. As we move forward with formalising these transfers of title in written contracts, should we request the removal or striking of any obscure clauses from the transfer? If so, what steps should we take to facilitate this, and how should we address any objections that may arise in response to such proposals?

Once more your insights will be greatly appreciated.