Survey on onerous ground rent data. Please fill this in if you have a leasehold house with exploitative ground rent terms
The first-time buyer of a Bellway leasehold house is furious that the housebuilder has sold off the freehold to her property to ground rent investment company Adriatic Land adding thousands to its cost.
Heather [who does not want to give here surname], 36, had been told in writing in 2015 by Bellway that it would cost £3,750 to buy the freehold of her £250,000 leasehold house in Ellesmere Port, in the Wirral.
She had bought the property new on a 150-year lease in 2010. Ground rents are £125pa, rising with RPI every five years.
But in February 2016 Bellway sold the freehold to Adriatic Land 4 (GR 1) Limited / Homeground Management Limited, part of the Long Harbour residential freehold group set up by William Waldorf Astor, Samantha Cameron’s half-brother and heir to the viscountcy.
Derek Blank, finance director of Bellway, told Heather last April 27: “Unfortunately as you did not come to contract after our contact with you in April 15, we were under no obligation to offer it to you again. No offer can be open ended.”
Heather, who has three children with her partner aged six, three and 12 weeks, contacted Adriatic Land 4 (Gr 1) Limited in March 2016. She was aghast to discover that it wanted £12,750 for the freehold, including legal fees. (Even getting the quote from came with a fee: £108.)
After many months of negotiation, involving the engagement of solicitors, the total came down to £7,680: £6,000 for the freehold and £1,680 in legal and surveyor fees.
“On the 1st October we accepted the £7,680 offer from Homeground /Adriatic as I was due to have my third child on the October 24 and really had had enough of the stress.”
The freehold purchase has been further delayed because it is still registered in Bellway’s name on the Land Registry, not in the name of Adriatic Land (Gr4).
The reason Heather and her partner were so keen to buy the freehold was that they wanted to build an extension to the property, which Bellway said would cost £300 for the full consent.
Under the new freehold owners, Adriatic Land 4 (GR 1) Limited – which hides its ultimate beneficial owners behind nominee directors – the proposed cost was £333 consent fee plus surveyors fees £2,440 for the licence.
Heather paid the £333 when she understood this to be the final fee for the building consent.
After threatening to take the issue to tribunal, Homeground Management Limited, which manages freehold revenue streams for Adriatic Land 4 (GR 1) Limited, re-paid the fee as “a gesture of goodwill”.
Heather adds: “This has been the most stressful year of my life!
“We had absolutely no idea Bellway could sell our freehold, and that this would cost us so much money to resolve.
“At no point has Bellway, or our initial solicitors, ever pointed out the disadvantages that we faced by buying a leasehold house where the freehold would be sold on.”
Earlier this week, Bellway and Taylor Wimpey leaseholders in Ellesmere Port were interviewed by BBC TV.
Local MP Justin Madders made a powerful contribution to the Commons debate on leasehold on December 20.
A spokesman for Homeground said that some difficulties arose because homeowners in the UK are not used to negotiating over the initial price suggested.
The directors of Homeground Management Limited are given as:
William Waldorf Astor
James Stacy Aumonier
Richard John Sherry
Technically, it is the freeholds that are being bought and sold. In practice though it is the innocent purchasers of these leasehold homes (sorry virtually freehold homes) that are being bought and sold.
It is their dreams of property ownership, their hopes for security for their families, their tranquility that are being sold .For what? A few extra quid on the balance sheet for these greedy grasping developers.
Leasehold for flats has had it’s day,but at least a case can be made for leasehold flats. No such case can be made for leasehold houses. Not one of the developers have even attempted to justify leasehold houses (apart from the pathetic “It’s normal for the North West”)
The developers may think that all they have to do is “ride out the storm” over this. They are very wrong. This issue will not go away! Woe betide any developer that continues this shameless and immoral practice or doers not rectify their wrongs.
Michael E. The developers who build these ‘Leasehold houses’ are no more than Rachmanist Spivs .There is no case to be made by them and they will only be allowed to ‘ ‘ ride out the storm’ if good men and women do nothing. I truly hope that the affected leaseholders will galvanise and protest on the streets. I will certainly join them
I put my principles where my mouth is!.Also a signed petition to 10 Downing st couldn’t hurt.
You are right there Michael, the guilty Developers can never ride out this storm.
That is what I have been advising to one of them.
1 They need to stop this practise.
2 They need to compensate
3 If they fail to do either of these quickly the pressure can only grow.
The company in question has conformed to Item 1 and Item 2 is in progress.
Still work to do to avoid Item 3.
While the debate drags on for years one simple interim measure would be to extend the right of first refusal granted to tenants by the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 to the owners of leasehold houses.
Unfortunately, the Right Of First Refusal is one of the easiest bits of legislation to get around.
All you have to do is create a company that holds the freeholds as an asset of the company.
If the company sells off the assets ie, the freeholds, then of course the Right Of First Refusal comes into play.
So what you do is to sell the company, that holds the freeholds. That way the freeholds have not been sold, as the freeholds remain with the freeholding company.
That is why for example the Tchenguiz freehold portfolio, was made up of hundreds of individual companies.
I live across the road from the lady this article is written about in exactly the same property. I have applied for my freehold from homeground and they have quoted me £13,350. They refuse to provide me with a breakdown of how this figure was calculated. I have used the above as an example to them as I believe a precedence has been set and best practice to do so. Therefore I should be offered the fair price of £6000 without having to pay all the extra legal fees. But they will not consider anyone else’s situation and have said they only consider the individual property. They must hate the fact that we are all talking to each other and sharing stories. It’s a joke. I am not going to back down on this. I will fight it every step of the way !!!!
I suggest you do some research into properties they are selling and check where they are advertising, then seek to get some local editorial cover. Visit the neighbours and local shopkeepers, put up some flyers. Some guerilla marketing may help change their minds. You could buy some Google adwords. A lot can be done that’s very visible for a modest expense and will have them swearing. Whether you desist after they have paid you to go away is, of course, up to you.
Would the same Solicitor who helped Heather reduce the cost to £6000 be able to do the same for you.
You appear to be in exactly the same situation, so what difference does it make if Homeground treat each property individually.
Katie, the suggestion made by Alec is in my view excellent and will start to put the cat among the pigeons! In addition You can always organise demonstration outside their ‘Show Homes’. ….
I live on the same estate and have done for nearly ten years, being one of the first family’s to buy on this estate. I can confirm publically at no point during my purchase process with Bellway was i told that in the future the lease on my property could be sold on to a new management company’s and the potential consequence of this happening! Have always found Bellway to be obtuse and generally unhelpful to be honest.
Regards Paul Williams
Please feel free to join the two groups I’ve set up “leasehold Scandal Ellesmere Port & National Leasehold Campaign”.
You are not alone. Non of us were even aware this was a possibility. Which is why we all feel miss sold our homes. If there were open and honest with their intentions in the first instance we would of had all the information in order to make an “informed decision” whether to proceed with the purchase.
Because they failed to provide us with this “Key” information we are now all stuck with our freeholds being owned by ….. well to be honest i have no idea who they are as their true identities are hidden behind nominal directors!!!.
As far as i’m concerned it’s deceptive practice. They claim it was always their intention to sell on the freeholds surely that’s important information to share will customers. How dare they keep this from us.
If you have an operation you are informed of all the advantages and disadvantages in order to make an informed decision if you want to give consent based on the information.
Whilst our health is paramount our homes are the biggest purchase we will ever make. Yet the developers hold all the cards and we have no idea how they are going to be dealt.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any help.
Hi Katie, I believe that I saw you on TV. My son is in exactly the same position, re a Leasehold detached house in Ellesmere Port, built by Bellway. I am just approaching Solicitors to progress his Purchase request. I would appreciate any help that you could provide, from your own experience. Of course, I would reciprocate this, if possible. I had read the earlier article about the smaller sale price and was quite optimistic – maybe prematurely, given your comments. Is there any way that we could make contact? I don’t mind putting an email address on the forum but I am a bit wary of giving ‘the other side’ too much info. Thanks Ann C
Ann, Katie Has started a Facebook campaign called THE NATIONAL LEASEHOLD CAMPAIGN. it has over 1000 members. Join up and DO NOT proceed with the purchase until you have spoken to the campaign.
Yes of course join the leasehold scandal ellesmere port page if you can and inbox me. Ill send you my number to discuss.
I’m happy to help anyway I can
Katie, you carry on fighting and we will support you.Keep us updated on this site.
Will do. Thank u for your support.
Oops meant ‘Paul
Joseph suggestion re flyers etc.
Thanks Kim. I have done all of what Paul has suggested including some national media to be coming out soon. They won’t keep me quiet !! Not when it’s my families homes and future at risk.
Excellent Katie. If you require any support E.G. Signing petitions,emailing the directors/ CEO ‘Bellway’ then let alert this site. I will certainly give you my support as I am sure will others. STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!!
Thank u. Sebastian has been very supportive
There have been some interesting articles in the US press on resistance to the Trump regime. There are many resistance sites
to pick three from dozens. One of the clear messages from a quick scan of a few of these sites is the idea that calling or writing to elected representatives is worth doing and that the cumulative effects count. At face value this might seem a statement of the blindingly obvious, but the truth, which we also know, is that a great many people are too apathetic or too cynical to bother and are given to such utterances as “I don’t bother voting; they’re all in it for themselves”. Whether or not one believes that doesn’t matter greatly as politicians rarely want to be on the wrong side of public opinion (whether well-informed or not). They respond to pressure. In a democracy they have no choice.
Two things are striking about the persistence of leasehold in England and Wales: the conflict of interest of the Conservative party which is in receipt of funds from large freeholders, and the extraordinary passivity of leaseholders in challenging the status quo.
Let’s face it: Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd have done more for leasehold reform in the last couple of years than a number of other organizations have achieved in a very, very long time, and they have done it essentially on a philanthropic basis. LKP and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation are charities.
Time now for leaseholders to start making their voices heard?
A year ago I attended a party at a friend’s house in the course of which I spoke to her mother-in-law. She was living in a retirement home. “Not run by Peverel I hope” I joked. Well, talk about lighting blue touch paper! This poor woman and her neighbours were at their wits end. They are, of course, of a generation that is offline and correspondingly vulnerable. If you can believe it this poor woman was amazed at how much I knew and could tell her about Peverel. We need to end the situation where people think they are isolated and vulnerable.
I see two kinds of responses to injustices in leasehold: one is to gain redress for one’s own problems; another is to try to help others as well.
If you have time to do so please do what you can to help others. Track them down. Make them aware of the issues. Persuade them to lobby their MP. If the MP is Conservative remind them, somehow, that the party’s donations from freeholders come from the pockets of leaseholders and that leaseholders have more votes. All MPs are quick to respond to associations and groups of potential supporters.
We are living in a time of extraordinary injustice where the gains from higher productivity from new technology and globalisation flow increasingly to the 0.01% who have used every trick in the book to avoid paying their fair share. Furthermore, the network of UK tax havens (BVI, Cayman Islands, Jersey, Guernsey etc.) collectively facilitate the largest rip-off of taxpayers globally. The UK taxpayer trying to buy a home must compete with flight capital laundered through these tax havens. It’s great for those already on the UK property ladder to have prices pushed up by dirty money from all over the world, and a disaster for those living in the UK, paying taxes, and trying, as David Cameron never tired of saying, to “do the right thing”.
It is time for US to ask if the Conservatives will “do the right thing”? They have been claiming to want a society that works for all. Personally, I do not believe they will deliver leasehold reform unless they are compelled to. Either way, yhey will not be compelled to unless it’s made an inescapable obligation. Only leaseholders acting together can make that happen.
That means, surely, that each of us needs to do what we can to help other leaseholders. You could start here:
and take a leaf from the book of the Trump resistance movement: five minutes a day.
Michael Loveridge has a valid point. Unfortunately, you fail to fully appreciate how unscrupulous freeholders manipulate sale and purchase agreements in order to evade leaseholder right of first refusal. ..
The LTA 1987 provides that qualifying tenants (long leaseholders in residential flats) possess the right of first refusal to purchase the landlord interest in the premises should the landlord wish to sell it, or buy that same interest from the purchaser, on like terms to the original disposal, should the landlord actually sell it..
The introduction of criminal penalties through the Housing Act 1996 was designed specifically to prevent landlords from ignoring this provision.
There is large scale national abuse of this existing legislation by a small group of unregulated predatory individuals and companies through the sale of “Ground Rent portfolios” specifically related to freehold residential premises constructed during the 1970/80/90s .
This trade takes place without the prior knowledge of qualifying leaseholders, and as a significant number of individual flats involved consist of 99 years leases, the number of years remaining on such leases nears or is under 80 years, ensuring the flat owner will require a lease extension in the immediate future.
It is through willful manipulation of sale and purchase agreements ( S&P) that qualifying leaseholders are kept ignorant and unaware of their rights of first refusal,
There is a great deal of misunderstanding concerning right of first refusal. The law does provide that freehold titles may be legitimately transferred from one company to another associated with the same company.(e.g. ABC No 1 Ltd to ABC No. 2 Ltd), and there are sound commercial reasons why this should be so..
However, thieves fall out, and it should be appreciated the seller (unless he knows the buyer unusually well!) is not going to transfer title to an associated company until his purchase monies are secure (and where there is a charge on the premises he is usually prevented from doing so in any event), which is why S&P agreements are designed to hide the true criminal structure of the transaction, and which is also why it takes an eternity to obtain copy contract documents (as provided by s11A LTA 1987) from miscreants.
Where a landlord (seller) enters into an agreement with an unrelated purchaser to transfer the land in the title to an associated company of the seller on the basis that the transfer of the land is conditional on the purchase of the share(s) in the associated company by the unrelated purchaser, then the resultant sale transaction to the unrelated purchaser is a calculated and criminal breach of the provisions of the LTA 1987 (as amended by the Housing Ac t 1996). For in such circumstances, the transfer of the land takes place at a time when the landlord (seller) holds the shares in the associated company as a fiduciary agent for the unrelated purchaser and therefore the transfer is not to an associated company of the seller: :instead it is a criminal transaction to the unrelated purchaser.
The purchase of Ground Rent portfolios in residential flats is a lucrative business for unscrupulous buyers, who then enter into the additional (and consequently illegal) business of lease extension . The national scandal of “informal” lease extensions stems from this criminal trade in freehold titles
This criminal trade deprives gullible and vulnerable leaseholders of the full material interest in their own properties, and the existing criminal sanctions are plainly inadequate to prevent it..
Leaseholders caught by this criminal trade have the true value of their original investment literally stolen from them.
When qualifying leaseholders realise a sale of the freehold has taken place to an unrelated buyer they are usually individually isolated and lack the ability to do much about it. Enforcement is presently beyond the remit of the First Tier Tribunal-Property and can only be achieved through the Courts: a process both financially punitive, at disproportionate cost, and open to widespread abuse through lengthy procrastination, obfuscation, subterfuge and willful breach of Court procedures: especially through withholding of documents..
The lack of any form of regulatory regime or adequate penalty enables this criminal trade to continue unabated.
Intervention by Government and enforcement of existing legislation (Part 1 LTA 1987) can stop this evil trade once and for all.
Furthermore, some freeholders are taking advantage of the non-transparency of the British Virgin Islands to accomplish some of their illegal conduct. And yet, we see BVI yelps about wanting to be consulted about Brexit!
The people who have aided and abetted the fleecing of leaseholders in the UK want to have their say in Brexit. Seriously.
Meanwhile, the Conservative govt looks the other way on capital gains tax avoided by wealthy individuals buying UK property via offshore companies. Far from clamping down on abuses it is now threatening to adopt “a different economic model”, implicitly one of low taxes for the rich and deregulation so that the rich may extract even more from the ordinary citizens and pay even less toward public services. The threat to the BVI is of their money laundering and beneficial ownership concealment activities simply moving to London, leaving them… out in the warm?
A country that works for all not the few?
Leasehold and all of the abuses involved with it has been abolished in
and all the other places that inherited it from English Common Law. It survives in the England and Wales because it is a means by which a few are enriched. The few are major donors to the Conservative party and all of that party’s actions need to be judged by what they do not what they say. They have done nothing and anything they do will be because they have been forced to act..
I notice that this company Adriatic Land is divided into several different companies just like the Tchenquiz Fairhold companies.
I assume there is some underhand reason for this.
The Adriatic Land No 4 company which purchased this particular freehold is shown as previously being a Bellway company as are some of the others.
And one Adriatic Land Company.previously being Persimmons.
Is there some collusion between these companies to fleece the leaseholders.
I have been questioning this for a while and it makes little sense to me. Bellway allegedly sold mine and several freeholds to Adriatic land 4 (gr1) ltd in Feb 16. However adriatic was renamed on this date from Seaton, which was also previously been changed name from Bellway. The company was set up many years ago and was sat dormant. The Bellway. Directors Mr adey and Mr Ayres were directors of this company until February 16 when everything changed. They resigned as directors new directors appointed. New of the company changed and the company went from dormant to active. I have no idea what this means but I know what it looks like to someone like me who is just a victim of this awful mess.
Additional to this the shares were only worth £2 when the company was dormant.
Any help or advise what all of this means would be much appreciated.
Is this normal practice? And more importantly is this legal?
Katie, I certainly believe there is collusion between many involved in building or managing leasehold which should have been abolished years ago!!! I also believe that many of their dodgy practices are probably learned or honed at the conferences held every year for these so called ‘professionals’!
Please read the reply written by ‘Pro Bono Publico’ on the article about Clair Scott “whisteblower pulls out of BBC radio interview” posted on Jan 6th. It is excellent and may help many in the same situation.
I think you are right there Lesley.
The majority of the speakers and topics at these AGM’s, Conferences and Seminars are for the benefit of Freeholders and Management Companies..
Much more on the subject of forcing Leaseholders to pay up, rather than preventing them getting fleeced.
Even those which promote better management cannot be even handed as the system is already biased.
How about an Annual Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation Conference on behalf of the Leaseholders, where some of the evil practises can be exposed. And of course to be fair, there could some awards made for good practise.
I don’t understand why the law cannot be brought up to date, re the management of leasehold properties. Managing agents should be appointed by 51% majority of leaseholders. Technically the freeholder is not supposed to make money out of service charges (hollow laugh) therefore managing agents should be appointed from an independent list of aproved, qualified agents.
The way things are now, my dog could set up as a ‘management’ company and you d have to pay £1000’s to go to the tribunal to get him removed.
Michael, I would love to attend a conference FOR leaseholders and have been hoping for this to happen ever since Melissa began Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation. However I am disappointed to discover that LKP is supporting a ‘brand new’ conference only a month after the LEASE conference with some of the same speakers appearing at both! I know LEASE provide a condescending couple of hours EVENING sessions which I wouldn’t attend even if I lived nearby!!
Today (24th January 2017) the director of Adriatic Land 4 (GR1) resigned and new ones appointed. What exactly does this mean. Does this mean the portfolio of freeholds have been sold on yet again??
Also I’ve noticed all the directors appear to be registered to the same address:
Asticus Building, 21 Palmer Street, London, United Kingdom, SW1H 0AD.
When looking at this address it appears to be owned by several investment companies such as Axa, Scottish Widow, Allianz, Legal & General etc.
Can anyone please make sense of this for me?
MH is making a very interesting point. Please let us take note and do some research. It looks Jiiggerey Pokerey afoot!!!
Leaseholder, I believe that 1985 landlord tenants act states leaseholders have a right in the appointment of ‘Managing Agents’. There are many dishonest Freeholders/ Puppet agents on the prairie. Read your lease and pay only the RECOVERABLE sums due.Do not be bullied into paying inflated monies not due. . If you receive threatening letters from the agents dodgy solicitor, report them to the SRA. Agents are currently unregulated , so many of them defraud leaseholders at every opportunity. If you be
I eve fraud has been committed ,you should report them to the police.
The arrangement to avoid the provisions of Part 1 of the LTA 1987 by effecting a transfer of the land to an associated company entails:
1. Creation of an associated company. (bearing in mind the two year associaion rule-Housing Act 1996)).
2. Transfer of the land to the associated company
3. Transfer of the shares in the associated company to the purchaser.
When the LTA 1987 was first introduced, it was designed to prevent the buying and selling of freeholds without the knowledge of the long leaseholders. However, the simplest loophole was through use of an associated company. The freehold would be transferred to the associated company, specially formed for the purpose, and the shares then sold to the purchaser. There was no relevant disposal(within the meaning of part 1 of the LTA 1987) as what was being sold were shares and not an interest in property.. At this time sanctions for breach simply did not exist.
The Housing Ac t 1996 sought to remedy all this., and there are now criminal sanctions for not observing the provisions of the LTA 1987. The legislation was changed so that an associated company had to be associated with the landlord for at least two years.. Also, any agreement to enter into a conditional contract is a relevant disposal (breach of the provision).
It is now a criminal offence to sell the freehold title to premises to which Part 1 of the lTA 1987 applies, without first serving an offer notice (s5) on the majority of qualifying leaseholders. If the offender is a company, an individual can also be convicted where the offence is with his/her consent or connivance.
Long leaseholders have rights conferred on them by section 11A, of part 1 of the LTA 1987. (as amended) This enables the majority leaseholders to serve notice on the purchaser (i.e the party now showing as proprietor on the land register). requiring the purchaser to:inform the leaseholders of the terms of the freehold title sale.(original disposal).
The purpose of this entitlement under s11A of part 1 of the LTA 1987 is that leaseholders can obtain the necessary information so as to enable them to ascertain whether the premises in which they reside were lawfully sold (i.e actually to a subsidiary) or not or whether to exercise their right to purchase the title on identical terms to the original disposal.
The s11A notice should call on the purchaser to provide particulars of the terms on which the original disposal was made, so as to include full details of the purchase monies and the date on which it was made..Where the sale transfer consisted of entering into a contract, with the seller the purchaser must also provide, in addition, a copy of the contract(s)
A s11A notice is a simple and straightforward.letter.. However, it would be advisable to have a solicitor do so on behalf of the majority number of leaseholders in the affected premises, as otherwise the purchaser may be tempted to simply ignore it. The purchaser as listed on the land register is obliged by the legislation to respond within 28 days. If the purchaser fails to do so, – or palms off the transaction as -“we just purchased the shares etc…” then demand to see the appropriate contracts. – and to enforce this be ready to issue an injunction in the County Court.
That way you can find out exactly who owns what and how they acquired it..
Well done Alec, that information may prove very useful.
Having read through it, my understanding is as follows.
1 The leaseholder must be given the first chance to purchase the freehold. It is a criminal offence if this offer is not made.
2 If the freehold is sold of to another company the leaseholder has the right to know who to, the terms of the sale and the sale price.
They should see a copy of the contract.
3 If the sale was not lawful then the leaseholder has the right to purchase the freehold at the same terms as the original sale.
4 The information on the sale can be obtained by issuing a S11A notice which must be responded to in 28 days. This is best done by a Solicitor.
5 If the information is not forthcoming then issue an Injuction at a County Court.
I notice that there are 5 Adriatic Land companies Numbered 1 to 5
No1 Was Persimmons up to 16 December 2011
Nos 2 to 4. Were Bellway up to 10 April 2013
No5 is registered in Guernsey
There seems to be some tie up between Persimmons and Bellway as is confirmed in the later LKP article on properties in Cramlington Northumberland.
To complicate the situation even further it seems we have the Astors and Camerons involved.
It doesn’t work if the companies are in the British Virgin Islands. Disclosure can’t be compelled. This is why some landlords use the BVI.
Where a freeholder has disposed of the freehold title affecting premises to which, at the time of the sale, Part 1 of the LTA 1987 applied and no notice was served on the long leaseholders under s5 of the LTA 1987 with respect to that disposal then the majority of qualifying leaseholders have the right conferred by s 11A LTA 1987 to obtain information on the full terms of that disposal as you correctly outlined above.
An initial online enquiry to the Land Registry will provide historic data on proprietorship. If the register shows that on a specific date ownership was vested in ABC No 1 Ltd and at a later date the proprietorship was entered as XYZ Ltd, then start asking questions. and demand copy contracts. The register should also state that on the later date the price stated to have been paid for the land in the title, and “other property”,(if the sale covers a portfolio) was either zillions or a relative peppercorn.
Full disclosure of documents will show if there has been any irregularity., In the event of a criminal breach through failure to offer qualifying leaseholders the right of first refusal, the majority qualifying leaseholders can force a resale to themselves on like terms to the original disposal. So be prepared for full scale procrastination, obfuscation and subterfuge – which is where collusive lawyers excel themselves!
You have raised an interesting point. An “associated company” is a subsidiary of the main corporate body. However, if a freeholder asserts that transfer of the title interest is to an associate in the BVI (that is: ABC No 1 Ltd “sold” the title to ABC No 2 (BVI) Ltd) this raises some pertinent questions..
For if this sale took place in breach of the majority qualifying leaseholders right of first refusal, and as an associated company is one that is within the meaning of s736 of the Companies Act 1985. -that is within the meaning of English Law and jurisdiction……….then:
Q: Is an off-shore associate an associated company for the purposes of part 1 of the L:TA 1987.? If not sale of the freehold without reference to qualifying leaseholders right of first refusal is a criminal breach – in England.