Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Dear Sirs, I have been trying to buy the freehold of my building with the other qualifying tenants. We came to a verbal negotiation with our current Freeholder that we would share information on one survey, rather than two. we have been hit with an appurtenant value for the unofficial roof terraces of 45,000! 17,000 for the leases themselves. We have long leases and were never expecting the roof terraces to come into play. All flats have been using their roof terraces unofficially for over a decade. These roof terraces have no value to anyone else as they can only be accessed the flats they adjoin. Is this customary for this value to be slapped on?We have never had this appurtenant land ever mentioned previously. In fact The Freeholder tried to get out of all payments with the roofs saying that they were the sole use of the flat holders and therefore not part of the freehold.
Hello and thank you for your question. I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practicing lawyer in England with over 10 years experience.
May I clariy please on what basis the terraces have been valued please? Have they been valued on the basis that they are a retained feature of the building by the landlord?
Have the terraces been demised to any of the leaseholders under their leases?
They are saying that they are not demise but would increase the value by 40,000 for flat 2 and 30,000 for flat 5
We each have always had exclusive use of our individual terraces and still do - there is no value of sale to any thrid party
Thanks. How many years is left on the leases roughly? Do the terraces need work before they could add that value to the leases or do you think they might well add that much straightaway with no work if they were to be added to the respective flats?
about 110 years each flat.
The terraces are stable but need work ie roofing and new boards...
So if they're not on title my flat is worth 30 grand less? How can that be if she values my flat way higher than any realestate agent ever has?
There are two bases on which the landlord can seek to claim a premium in respect of the terraces. The most straightforward way would be a claim under marriage value. Marriage value is a odd name (you may have come across) which refers to the landlords right to claim a percentage of the increase in value to the respective flats following enfranchisement. This would be all well and good for the landlord but marraige value can only be claimed when there are less than 80 years remaining on the lease. From what you say this is not the case so this is not availabel to the landlord.
The other basis is to charge a premium for the acquisition of the landlords retained parts. The extent to which a premium is payable depends upon the value of these "features" to the landlord as opposed to the leaseholder. For example if something is already demised to a leaseholder then there is no value to that feature to the landlord. If however the leaseholder has no interest in a "reserved part" then the landlord could potentially seek to divest himself irrespective of the leases - e.g. hypothetically a car park which a landlord informally allows leaseholders to use but for which they have no right to use, could be sold or let out separately.
But are you saying they can try and sell the roof? We are already the highest point in the road... you can't get to it except by my flat - So how can it have value to the freeholder?
Ie roof terraces no one else can get to as opposed to a car park which anyone can use?
From what you say the terraces are not demised to leaseholders but the landlord has no prospect of doing anything with them due to their position and nature. Accordingly they have little or no value to the landlord unless there is development potential which I presume is unlikely. Therefore as the landlord cannot claim a marriage value for the increase in value to the flats if the leases have more than 80 years remaining under the legislation there is no obvious means for the landlord to claim a premium for the same unless the landlord can show that there is a genuine prospect for him to be able to do something with the terraces and derive value from them which from what you say is not a realistic prospect.
Is there anything above I can clarify for you?
Hye you're great!
That should have been 'hey, you're great'
Can I use this if I respond?
I'm glad to have been able to assist. If I can assist any further as the situation develops please do not hesitate to revert to me
If you have no further questions for now I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to rate my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me though
Ok how do I rate you?
Do you have an email address?
Oh I see it bellow - but the chat ends - can I get an email to recommend or are you just her?
There should be some smiley faces to provide a rating. If you would like to revert to me you can either return to this thread - the chat is saved when you provide a rating. Alternatively you can bookmark my profile if you have any further questions at any time in the future (link below)
Are you absolutely sure that the basis of the calculation is based on the value of the appurtenant space to the freeholder not the tenant?
Because I'm drafting a letter to the freeholder using large parts of your answer...
Thin I just got an automated response... It's in relation to the questions already answered.
Yes I mean that the calculated price for Appurtenant 'land' is based on the value for the freeholder not the lessee...