You are reading a single comment by @dbr and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
So in order of desirability:
- Owning freehold outright
- Both flats leasehold with external freeholder
- Owning share of freehold
- Leaseholder with neighbour as freeholder
- Owning freehold outright
dbr-
In my view, yes, for two flat properties. And like @aggi says, if you get on well with the other live in share, it will be good, and in that case a share might be desirable. They can move, though, and if you veto anything, things can turn sour quick. And from what you say about your neighbour, it sounds bad. Anything else is different, because in a three flat property and a live in freeholder the other two leaseholders can force a share.
Howard
Because it means you have to compromise. And if the other shareholder is difficult, everything becomes time consuming and difficult. Unless you have a great relationship with the other share owner, it's a ball ache compared to being a leaseholder, providing the other flat is leasehold too and you have long leases. In that situation you can at least gang up on the freeholder if they try to stiff you.
If you are the sole freeholder, and resident, in a two flat property, you can do what you like, pretty much, within the grounds of the law and the existing leases. IIRC the leaseholder cannot force you to sell a share to them, and you can impose service charges and all sorts of nonsense, threaten major works to get them to do what you want etc. It really is a nightmare for the disenfranchised leaseholder.