Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Re Simon D's comments yesterday, I would make the following replies:
1. The government brought in Commonhold. Nobody uses it because it is perceived as unworkable.
2. The reason leasehold survives is because of a legal rule that recognises the complexity involved in Person A being able to compel Person B, a property owner in the same building, to do something (as opposed to simply doing nothing) relating to that building, and if A sells to C , and B sells to D, there is a risk that C and D will not have any legal basis to enforce necessary obligations without the existence of the leasehold structure. Enforcement of obligations against future owners is hard enough even when there are Restrictions on the relevant land registry title, and these often involve red tape and legal expense (such as deeds of covenant, transfer of shares in a company etc) .
3. Possibly the answer is an amendment to the Land Registry Act 1925 stating that when a person becomes the registered proprietor of a title to land, they are retrospectively 9back to the date of their acquisition) liable to all other property owners for compliance with the covenants in their lease. I would retain the concept of the 999 year lease.
4. There is still sometimes a logic in retaining ground rent. If some 9but not all) of the lessees in a building form a limited company to acquire the freehold, the service charge provisions probably do not entitle them to use the service charge fund to pay the company's administrative costs, such as auditing fees and filing at Companies House. the cost of this has to be found from somewhere, and the ground rent income is a logical source.

Your details

Cancel