Complicated leases and mortgages

[tony3x]

1. I would like to understand these two complicated leases and I would like to know if maybe this property has been leased in this way to have less tax to pay or less interest in the two mortgages for another reason?
   

 

 

Maybe they have bought the property as part of a SIPP or SSAS pension scheme, with the inherent tax advantages? I don't see how it affects you as a tenant though.

HB

 

You cannot have a residential property in a pension scheme of any sorts but as you say its irrelevant as a tenant.

[tony3x]

As for the OP.

You need to check with Land Registry to see how the property is divided up. If there is more than one mortgage lender I would assume it has been split into separate dwellings.

 

The freeholder is allowed to split the property into separate dwellings and each one can have different owners. As someone has already mentioned this could be for tax reasons (legally). Leases are granted per dwelling and the leases will be in the name of who owns them individually.

 

Its not unusual and I know a few people that do it.

[tony3x]

1.

“By understanding your question I think you want to know why different flats in the same building have different mortgages on it with the same person on both mortgages - is that really your issue?

Yes this is one my questions and I would like to understand why not the same mortgage lender why this additional bureaucracy”

2.

“You need to check with Land Registry to see how the property is divided up”

However it is following a check with the Land Registry that I have posted this thread and it is from the Title Register of the freehold i.e. of the entire property and from the Title Registers of each of the two leaseholds that I have found the information to write my first post. Hence this property is divided up as explained in my first post

3.

This means that this property has been divided up. However the woman says that she has transformed her property into a single dwelling house to get permitted development rights that only house? Is she saying the truth? Could her property really been transformed into a single dwelling house?

4.

“If there is more than one mortgage lender I would assume it has been split into separate dwellings”

Are you sure that the fact that there are two mortgage lenders means that this property has been split into separate dwellings?

 

1 - the mortgages may have been done at different times and the best deal at the time could have been chosen

 

2 - If it shows as separate dwellings on the land registry the it appears the owner has done nothing wrong

 

3 - Are you sure that she hasn't converted from a single dwelling and not the other way round. Does each flat have its own entrance door, kitchen & bathroom?

 

4 - If there are 2 lenders it would normally mean separate titles. the other option could be that one is a second charge lender and both charges are on the whole property but this would be unusual.

 

Are you looking to buy one of the flats or just rent as it seems a lot of investigation just to rent.

[tony3x]

1.

“ the mortgages may have been done at different times and the best deal at the time could have been chosen”

In the title register of each of these two leaseholders it is stated that they were leased on the same day

2.

“If it shows as separate dwellings on the land registry the it appears the owner has done nothing wrong”

However she claims that it is single dwelling house. Hence the question is it is really a single dwelling house?

3.

“ Are you sure that she hasn't converted from a single dwelling and not the other way round. Does each flat have its own entrance door, kitchen & bathroom?”

She claimed to have converted from a block of flats into a single dwelling house to have permitted development rights that only houses have even though none of her three bathrooms and two kitchens were removed

4.

“ If there are 2 lenders it would normally mean separate titles”

There are two separate titles in the Land Registry

5.

“the other option could be that one is a second charge lender and both charges are on the whole property but this would be unusual”

I do not know if it could be a ‘second charge’ because in the title register of each of these two leaseholds it is stated that they were leased the same day

6.

Why there are two lenders specially that in the title register of each of these two leaseholds it is stated that they were leased the same day

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day the property owner can use whatever lender they wish to. It could be one was done as a residential and the other as a buy to let. If you are that bothered ask but be prepared to be told to mind your own. When you say 'she claims its a single dwelling', why are you asking. You also haven't answered whether there are separate entrance doors, kitchens and bathrooms for each flat.

I am also confused about the property as you claim it was a block of flats that has been converted into a single dwelling which to be honest would be an unusual situation as the value of a block of flats would be far greater. How many flats were there originally as it seems from your description they are still flats. Also not sure about 'permitted development'. This would normally apply to the building of a small extension type thing that did not need planning permission. Any conversion to or from house to flat would definitely need planning permission.

[tony3x]

something not right.

The property without the kitchen cannot be classed as a flat that is habitable, it is effectively a bed sit and as such should not have its own lease.

You cannot have a freehold on just the second floor.

You do need planning permission to convert flats to houses.

Permitted development applies to minor works only - http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/planningpermission/permitted

 

Looks to me like they have split the original 2 flats into 2 flats and a bedsit.

 

You have still not stated why you need this information and to be honest if you have a problem with the property you can always report it to the LA.

[tony3x]

1.

“something not right”

You are right and it is why I am interested and I would like to understand

2.

“The property without the kitchen cannot be classed as a flat that is habitable, it is effectively a bed sit and as such should not have its own lease”

Do you know which statute or definition say that in order a property to be leased with a separate Title Register in the land registry it should be self-contained. I thinking to some buildings which have never been habitable and which have also an owner and can also maybe be leased

3.

“You cannot have a freehold on just the second floor”

There is a leasehold in the ground floor and another leasehold in the first floor but no leasehold in the second floor. Moreover this building has only three floors. It is why I say that the second floor (the top floor) is a freehold

 

 

Re the statute question - my knowledge is based on placing mortgages for the past 20 odd years and I can tell you now that no mortgage lender would look at a property with no kitchen.

 

Having a think about it the property is on 2 leases as it is effectively a single level (ground floor) flat and a duplex flat on the 2nd/3rd floor. Now if the owners have divided the 2nd/3rd floor into 2 properties that is another matter. As far as land registry is concerned it would show the leases as ground floor flat and 1st floor flat although the 1st floor is over 2 floors.

 

This is my last comment until you tell us all why you have such interest.