Complicated leases and mortgages

[resources]

Several people want that I consult a solicitor. However I have already consulted a solicitor for different matters sometime ago and unless I pay him a little fortune he will not tell me more that I already know. Moreover I have to find a solicitor who is specialised in this matter what is not easy or better to find a barrister otherwise he will not know more than you or me. In conclusion I prefer legal discussions than to legal advice for the time being.

 

 

The issue is how a building could be a single dwelling house if some parts of it are rented separately. We have to take into account many factors and this is one of them. After all the man has leased only two of the three floors.

[sillygirl1]

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?

[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.

[mariner51]

By all means check any prospective LL has right to Let etc, but anyone (T) digging into my private tax arrangements will not get a Tenancy offer. If you want to know more, pay a Solicitor to advise you.

[resources]

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?

[Andyorch]

I think that vacancy will be long gone by the time you have completed your research into the LL personal financial affairs....hypothetically speaking...of course.

 

Andy

[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.

[resources]

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

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

[resources]

1.

“At the end of the day the property owner can use whatever lender they wish to”

However it is not only the property owner (the woman) you use two different lenders but also the man who is also party to the leasehold of the ground floor and to the leasehold of the first floor

2

“When you say 'she claims it's a single dwelling', why are you asking”

Because if it is a single dwelling house it is entitled to permitted development rights what means that she can do important work in her property without planning permission forcing any tenant to leave.

3.

“You also haven't answered whether there are separate entrance doors, kitchens and bathrooms for each flat”

Each flat has its own entrance. There is a communal stair to access the first and second floor. The leasehold ground floor has its own kitchen and bathroom. The leasehold first floor has its own bathroom. The freehold second floor has its own bathroom and kitchen

4.

“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”

However a block of flats contrary to a single dwelling house has the disadvantage of not having permitted development rights allowing its owner to do important work without planning permission

5.

“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.

Permitted development rights apply to buildings of any size as long as they are single dwelling houses and not block of flats

6.

“Any conversion to or from house to flat would definitely need planning permission”

A conversion from block of flats to single dwelling house does not need planning permission also long as no more than five units are lost.

[resources]

I forgot to reply to the following question

7.

“How many flats were there originally as it seems from your description they are still flats”

 

 

Originally there were two flats. One made up of only the ground floor and another made up of the first and second floor (it is why the first floor has its own bathroom but not its own kitchen). However strangely this repartition does not correspond with the repartition in the Land Registry where there is a leasehold in the ground floor, a different leasehold in the first floor and a freehold in the second floor

 

[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.

[resources]

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

 

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

You've been asked at least twice why you want to know this. We would like to understand why please.

 

HB

[resources]

I will maybe rent a room in this house or maybe not. Moreover I find this issue very interesting and I would like to understand it. Furthermore what is the more important is that there are threads in this forum which are interesting which anyone can enjoy

[BazzaS]

I will maybe rent a room in this house or maybe not. Moreover I find this issue very interesting and I would like to understand it. Furthermore what is the more important is that there are threads in this forum which are interesting which anyone can enjoy

 

But, will you get your re-sit?

(How can you decide if you want to rent it or not while you claim you aren't a student who struggles with their studies, but your educational establishment has booted you out : surely you need to know what area you'll need to stay in before signing a lease?)

[resources]

This issue of renting or not has now become secondary specially that I can rent somewhere else. What is the more important for me now is to get a reply to my last set of questions because I find this issue very interesting and I would like to understand it

[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.

[BazzaS]

But the OP has told us why : because they might rent it.

 

Put aside your scepticism, as they have told us that twice : as if restating it makes it true.

But - Hang on! They have now said they can rent somewhere else, (no doubt with a landlord who is happy to have the details of their freehold & personal financials thoroughly forensically investigated....) so the OP is now asking purely for interest!, and would like to understand it, not for any other reason.

 

Me, I'm still waiting to understand how they can be "not struggling with their studies", yet failed an exam and were refused a re-sit........

[caro]

This issue of renting or not has now become secondary specially that I can rent somewhere else. What is the more important for me now is to get a reply to my last set of questions because I find this issue very interesting and I would like to understand it

 

Then I suggest that you research it somewhere more appropriate than a website dedicated to helping consumers.

 

Thread closed.

[resources]

I would maybe rent a house

 

 

Concerning this property which was previously a block of two flats there is a planning condition which says that a section 106 agreement is necessary and as a consequence a section 106 was signed which says that the occupiers of the ground floor flat cannot apply for a parking permit

 

Now this property has been amalgamated into one single dwelling. The question that I have is what has happened to the Section 106 agreement?

 

 

1.

The ground floor to which this Section 106 applies will not be anymore a separate residential unit does this means that this Section 106 does not apply anymore or that following this amalgamation this Section 106 applies to the entire property preventing any occupiers of this property from applying for a parking permit?

 

2.

Does this mean that this propriety could not be a single dwelling house because of this section 106 agreement because if it was a single dwelling house the occupiers of the first floor and of the second floor will be also occupiers of the ground floor? Hence occupiers of the ground floor will be able to apply for a parking permit what this Section 106 agreement prohibits

 

3.

This Section 106 agreement was not discharged when this property was amalgamated so it was still valid so can we say that for this reason this residential unit in the ground floor was still here and it could not have disappeared by being amalgamated and as a consequence this property is still a block of flats and could not be a single dwelling

 

4.

Does planning permission would have been necessary to amalgamate this property into a single dwelling house because of this planning condition and this Section 106 agreement and as a consequence the planning department was wrong to grant a lawful development certificate to amalgamate this property into a single dwelling without planning permission?

[stu007]

This link from Local Government Association may be of use: http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE

 

This Gov Link also: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106

[BazzaS]

I would maybe rent a house

 

 

Concerning this property which was previously a block of two flats there is a planning condition which says that a section 106 agreement is necessary and as a consequence a section 106 was signed which says that the occupiers of the ground floor flat cannot apply for a parking permit

 

Now this property has been amalgamated into one single dwelling. The question that I have is what has happened to the Section 106 agreement?

 

 

1.

The ground floor to which this Section 106 applies will not be anymore a separate residential unit does this means that this Section 106 does not apply anymore or that following this amalgamation this Section 106 applies to the entire property preventing any occupiers of this property from applying for a parking permit?

 

2.

Does this mean that this propriety could not be a single dwelling house because of this section 106 agreement because if it was a single dwelling house the occupiers of the first floor and of the second floor will be also occupiers of the ground floor? Hence occupiers of the ground floor will be able to apply for a parking permit what this Section 106 agreement prohibits

 

3.

This Section 106 agreement was not discharged when this property was amalgamated so it was still valid so can we say that for this reason this residential unit in the ground floor was still here and it could not have disappeared by being amalgamated and as a consequence this property is still a block of flats and could not be a single dwelling

 

4.

Does planning permission would have been necessary to amalgamate this property into a single dwelling house because of this planning condition and this Section 106 agreement and as a consequence the planning department was wrong to grant a lawful development certificate to amalgamate this property into a single dwelling without planning permission?

 

 

Is this your previous thread (which was closed) again?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448090-Complicated-leases-and-mortgages/page3

[resources]

No this concern another property and another issue