My partner and I are refinancing our apartment in Farnham Royal with Nationwide. We have a son 18 who lives with us. Our solicitor requested us to identify anyone over the age of 17 other than ourselves who lives in the flat. Our lawyer has now e-mailed a document for our son to sign, waiving any legal rights in the event that the apartment is forfeited by the lender. I have a couple of questions (1) Is this form unique to the Nationwide conveyancing panel as he did not need to sign this form when we bought 5 years ago (2) In signing this form is our son in any way compromising his right to inherit the property?
On the face of it your lawyer has done nothing wrong as it is established procedure for any occupier who is aged 17 or over to sign the necessary Consent Form, which is purely to state that any rights he has in the property are postponed and secondary to Nationwide. This is solely used to protect Nationwide if the property were re-possessed so that in such circumstances, your son would be legally obliged to leave. It does not impact your son’s right to inherit the apartment. Please note that if your son were to inherit and the mortgage in favour of Nationwide had not been discharged, he would be liable to take over the loan or pay it off, but other than that, there is nothing stopping him from keeping the property in accordance with your will or the rules of intestacy.
I purchased a freehold house in Farnham Royal but still invoiced for rent, why is this and what is this?
It’s unusual for properties in Farnham Royal and has limited impact for conveyancing in Farnham Royal but some freehold properties in England (particularly common in North West England) pay an annual sum known as a Chief Rent or a Rentcharge to a third party who has no other legal interest in the land.
Rentcharge payments are usually between £2.00 and £5.00 per year. Rentcharges date back many centuries, but the Rent Charge Act 1977 barred the establishment of new rentcharges from 1977 onwards.
Old rentcharges can now be extinguished by making a lump sum payment under the Act. Any rentcharges that are still in existence after 2037 is to be dispensed with completely.
Do I need to pay for insurance to protect me from financial exposure to chancel repairs when buying a house in Farnham Royal?
Unless a prior acquisition of the property took place after 12 October 2013 you may assume that conveyancing practitioners delivering conveyancing in Farnham Royal to continue to propose a a chancel search and or insurance against a claim.
In what way does the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 affect my business premises in Farnham Royal and how can you help?
The 1954 Act provides a safeguard to commercial leaseholders, granting the legal entitlement to apply to court for a renewal tenancy and remain in occupation at the end of an expired lease. There are limited grounds where a landlord can refuse a lease renewal and the rules are complex. We are happy to direct you to commercial conveyancing solicitors who use the act for protection and handle your commercial conveyancing in Farnham Royal
I need to retain a conveyancing solicitor for leasehold conveyancing in Farnham Royal. I happened to land on a web site which seems to have the perfect offering If it is possible to get all this stuff completed via web that would be ideal. Should I be wary? What should out be looking out for?
As usual with these online conveyancers you need to read ALL the small print - did you notice the extra charge for dealing with the mortgage?
My aim is to purchase a garden flat in Farnham Royal. Conveyancing solicitor is awaiting, from the seller, building insurance paperwork. I was told today I was informed that the owner must forward the insurance schedule for the flat above in addition. Why would my lawyer want to review the insurance for the flat above? Is it strictly required? We have been stalled for the last month…
It is not unheard of in leasehold conveyancing in Farnham Royal to find Conveyancing in Farnham Royal in a minority of cases reveals that the lease requires the leasehold owners to insure their individual flats rather than the landlord insuring the complete building - which is definitely better. Do check with your solicitor but it would appear that your conveyancing practitioner is attempting to establish that the entire building is insured. Insuring a ground floor residence is no help when it comes to rebuilding after a fire if the other flat cannot be reconstructed for lack of insurance.