-
I read that as the number of people rather than flats.
So if he's got four people on the lease living in his flat (unlikely), and you've got two and your other neighbour has one, then he's got the majority?
I can't see any realistic possibility it would be read that way by a judge, as it wouldn't make any sense. It would simply encourage the owner of each flat to have the legal title to the leasehold held by four people (the Law of Property Act 1925 imposes a limit of 4 joint legal owners), which would be futile and pointless. Legal title to all land is held jointly, so where there's more than one owner of a leasehold flat they each own all of the flat jointly at law (the position is different in equity). So collectively they could be viewed as 'the tenant', and I'm sure that's how it would be interpreted.
You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Brommers
I read that as the number of people rather than flats.
So if he's got four people on the lease living in his flat (unlikely), and you've got two and your other neighbour has one, then he's got the majority?
IANAL