From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:10uq1jt$1kqav$1@dont-email.me...

I don't think there's any requirement that the freeholder take any responsibility for the property. I think that the freeholder only owns the land it's on. The building is the joint responsibility of the leaseholders.

The freeholder may initially appoint a managing agent and it's
the freeholder or their managing agent who are responsible as
"the responsible person" for ensuring that the building meets
all current regulations; including fire regulations. To be paid
for by the annual service charge, paid by the leaseholders.

A new managing agent may be appointed by the tenants by
appeal to a tribunal; making the former responsible,
and still needing to levy a service charge; but possibly
more transparent

Over and above this however is a the full repairing
lease; which saddles the tenants with all the
maintenance and repair costs of the building
sometimes to a ridiculous extent; thus maintaining
its value to the ultimate benefit the freeholder.


bb




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 22/05/2026 18:36, billy bookcase wrote:

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:10uq1jt$1kqav$1@dont-email.me...

I don't think there's any requirement that the freeholder take any
responsibility for the property. I think that the freeholder only owns the >> land it's on. The building is the joint responsibility of the leaseholders.

The freeholder may initially appoint a managing agent and it's
the freeholder or their managing agent who are responsible as
"the responsible person" for ensuring that the building meets
all current regulations; including fire regulations. To be paid
for by the annual service charge, paid by the leaseholders.

A new managing agent may be appointed by the tenants by
appeal to a tribunal; making the former responsible,
and still needing to levy a service charge; but possibly
more transparent

Over and above this however is a the full repairing
lease; which saddles the tenants with all the
maintenance and repair costs of the building
sometimes to a ridiculous extent; thus maintaining
its value to the ultimate benefit the freeholder.

Rent to the freeholder is called "ground rent" implying that they only
own the ground the property is built on. In the case of a very long
lease, such as 999 years, maintenance of the property can hardly benefit
the freeholder as it will be so long before they resume ownership of the property (which might have fallen down).

Maybe there are different types of freeholder/leaseholder relationships. Perhaps someone here knows the legalities.
--
Max Demian

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated


"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:10us0t9$26mk5$1@dont-email.me...

On 22/05/2026 18:36, billy bookcase wrote:

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:10uq1jt$1kqav$1@dont-email.me...

I don't think there's any requirement that the freeholder take any
responsibility for the property. I think that the freeholder only owns the >>> land it's on. The building is the joint responsibility of the leaseholders. >>

The freeholder may initially appoint a managing agent and it's
the freeholder or their managing agent who are responsible as
"the responsible person" for ensuring that the building meets
all current regulations; including fire regulations. To be paid
for by the annual service charge, paid by the leaseholders.

A new managing agent may be appointed by the tenants by
appeal to a tribunal; making the former responsible,
and still needing to levy a service charge; but possibly
more transparent

Over and above this however is a the full repairing
lease; which saddles the tenants with all the
maintenance and repair costs of the building
sometimes to a ridiculous extent; thus maintaining
its value to the ultimate benefit the freeholder.

Rent to the freeholder is called "ground rent" implying that they only own the
ground the property is built on. In the case of a very long lease, such as 999
years, maintenance of the property can hardly benefit the freeholder as it will be so long before they resume ownership of the property (which might have
fallen down).

Maybe there are different types of freeholder/leaseholder relationships. Perhaps someone here knows the legalities.

I can think of at least one example of blocks of 30's built flats
Chiswick Village, where the freeholder eventually obtained planning
permission to add another storey of penthouses on the top. With all
the disrupution, scaffolding etc that that entailed.

So even if the existing residents had 999 years leases the freeholder
could still cash in by selling the new leases.* More especially as penthouses sell at a premium. As presumably did the previous top floor flats.


bb


https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conplan232chiswickvillage.htm

quote:

The airspace above the blocks was sold to the developer
in 1997.

unquote



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2