-
If you haven't checked already I think the first step could be to look at your lease to see if it specifies that light is reserved to the freeholder.
The principles involved are a bit long winded but I had a google and the following article, especially point 1, explains the issues behind it (albeit from the freeholder's perspective - i.e. trying to encourage freeholders to remove leaseholder rights. It's written by an actual lawyer, just to show I'm not talking complete bollocks).
This suggests tenants can claim their own rights to light when the lease allows it and that they can also claim a proportion of compensation payments.
Vanneau-
That's really interesting. Thanks dude. I've checked our lease and I think based on my reading of the hellish run-on-sentence we do not have a leg to stand on:
"[the freeholder] shall have power at all times without obtaining any consent from or making any compensation to the Lessee [...] to erect or suffer to be erected on any such adjoining opposite or neighbouring land any buildings whatsoever [...] whether such building alterations or additions shall or shall not affect or diminish the light or air [...] enjoyed by the Lessee or other the tenants or occupiers of the Flat or any part thereof"
Feels like I'm pretty fucked on this right?
ReekBlefs
Here's one for you leasehold / freehold experts.
We've got a building site next door. They've passed planning permission and they're constructing. Freeholders are objecting on the grounds of decreased light, which is fair because it will seriously impact our quality of light.
The Freeholders lawyers are aiming for compensation for this. Should any of that money make it back to the Leaseholders - the ones who are ultimately suffering from the lack of light - or is this considered to be a financial impact on an investment?