Why can't I buy common freehold with just my upstairs neighbour?

[ThatWasMyFavouriteDressNow]

I live in a block of four maisonettes. They are just like two semi detached houses but split into two levels, IYKWIM.
The people that live above us want to buy the common freehold and so do we but both neighbours on the other side are not interested.
We know that we can buy the freehold for the four properties but we cannot afford it.

Have taken legal advice in the past and again recently. We are always told that the freehold can only be sold as a whole block of four.
I accept this advice but when I ask why this is the case, none of the solicitors can tell me or give an explanation, they just look a bit confused or annoyed at being questioned. They just say this is the way it has to be. This inability to explain makes me lose a bit of faith in them.

I do accept their expertise and maybe they feel it is too complicated to explain to me. Maybe it is obvious and I am being stupid but I just want to understand.

What I don't understand is while I see a single 'block' of flats has to have the same freeholder or shared freehold, a pair of semi detached houses can have different freeholders.
Our upstairs neighbour and us have no shared land, pathways, entrance halls, gardens etc. with neighbours in maisonettes on the other side. We just have adjoining walls and roof and guttering. Just like a pair of semi-detached houses.

We actually only share land etc. (paths, some garden, driveways, front gate, some wall) with the block of four maisonettes opposite which are detached from us. This block bought the freehold for their 'block' a few years ago as three of them were in agreement and one of them bought the freehold of the one that wasn't , as well as his own.

I hope this all makes sense.

Why can't the two of us buy the freehold for just the land our property is on?

What am I missing?

titchy - there is only one freehold. I guess you could ask the freeholder to split it in two, and then sell you one, but this sounds expensive, and the freeholder probably wouldn't agree - not much in for them
He has split the freehold for the whole road into one seperate area containing a block of four flats, so this block of four could buy their freehold. It shouldn't be any more expensive than that.
Also under the right to buy the common freehold, all the freeholders legal expenses of this sort would have to be paid by the people buying. So we would be paying the cost of splitting it.

Thehedgehogsong - The land all four maisonettes are built on is the freehold land. It will be registered under one freehold title, and would still exist as one freehold even if the building wasn't there.
The land all 24 maisonettes are built plus garages etc. are registered under one freehold title (I looked it up) and has been split for some neighbours to buy the freehold of their block of four. They paid the cost of splitting that small parcel of land, inside the original large plot of whole road. It didn't cost them much - a few hundred pounds I think.
To treat the building as two semis, the freehold would need to be re-registered as two separate plots of land. That is how semis are registered. The owner of the freehold is the only person who could apply to do that.

To treat the building as two semis, the freehold would need to be re-registered as two separate plots of land. That is how semis are registered. The owner of the freehold is the only person who could apply to do that.
Again, has been re-registered before, for a block of four,, the owner would be willing to do so, we would pay his costs. So this is not an issue. The only issue is, can the land that two flats stand on be re-registered as a seperate plot land than the land the adjoining two flats stand on? One adjoining wall and roof just like two semis.

If I bought the flat above and turned it into a house (which we have considered) and a neighbour the other sude did the same, surely we would be able tohave our own seperate freehold? If not,. Why not?
If we would be able to buy the freehold of the four and then split it into two afterwards. Why can we not do this beforehand, if everyone is willing? The adjoining four flats would have two seperate freeholders, one side me and my upstairs neighbour having a common freehold and the other side having the original freeholder.

Legally speaking, if everyone was willing, I see no reason why it can't be done - you will need to get your laywer to point to the piece of legislation stopping it.
I think he has been advised that the right to buy only applies to the block of 4, so that is all you can force him to do.

I suspect you are now at the point where you realise what barriers exist, actual and perceived, regarding acquiring the whole or part of the freehold. Essentially it is possible but the complexities and multiple parties/interests involved and/or to be considered probably make it unviable

The following summation may also help.

If one or more of the leaseholders do not want to participate in buying the freehold then they don't have to but that should not prevent you from doing so - if you follow the Leasehold Advisory Service link provided by MrsSquirrel and follow the available trail you should arrive at this response www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/faq.asp?item=255

With regards splitting the freehold title itself then this too is possible and the key issues would be
Who? - the actual freeholder; and
How? - this would invariably come down to providing a suitable plan to define the split
As such the current freeholder probably would not want to split the title. And of course only you could after you have obtained the whole leasehold title but what's the point if the others would not then take on the leftover from the split?

As others mentioned other interests are also likely to impact on whether or not it is a 'good idea' - namely any insurance may be difficult to obtain; mortgage lenders might take issue, for example many mortgage lenders take a tougher view over 'flying freeholds' nowadays when in the past they were not viewed too differently to any other freehold mortgage.

So in essence, it is possible but the complexities both now and likely in the future may make it a poor choice - this may be what your solicitor was trying to imply although the response that it is just the way it has to be may have been borne from the simple fact that it does not happen that often?

It is not very normal to buy flats as freehold. They are usually owned by the building owner who has the freehold, then are split into either short or long leases. Almost all properties in London that you buy are leasehold.

The reason is because you want everybody to have the same interest. If you were to split the freehold title and have your own, you wouldn't particularly care about, say, letting your water run into the floor below. Whereas if you were on a lease you would have covenants preventing you from doing this (this is just an example; I am not accusing you of not caring about damage. Another example would be keeping pets. If you owned the freehold there wouldn't really be a reason why you couldn't have a pet unless there was a restrictive covenant on the title itself. But the owners of the flat below or of the building wouldn't want you to be able to keep a crocodile (!) for example, so properties that are close together are almost always leased). Usually the structure is that you own a long lease of the flat and a share in the freehold. Because the properties are so close together your interests will be more aligned. If you owned separate freeholds, your interests might conflict which would result in devaluing the individual properties.

LandRegRep1862
Thanks. Some good points. You seem to understand what I am thinking.
But - With regards splitting the freehold title itself then this too is possible and the key issues would beWho? - the actual freeholder; andHow? - this would invariably come down to providing a suitable plan to define the splitAs such the current freeholder probably would not want to split the title
The original freehold title was for the whole road of 24 flats. It has been split before into a block of 4. Why is it more problematic to split into a block of 2?
It doesn't seem problematic to split the freehold of a plot of land into 2 when building to semis on it.
A suitable plan could be defined to split it in the same way. Surely if a road consists of 12 leasehold semis, it would be no problem to split it up into 12 different freeholds. Why would it habe to be split into just 6 with each pair of adjoining semis having tonshare in the common freehold?

BigPawsBrown - I think maybe you are misunderstanding me.
The reason is because you want everybody to have the same interest. If you were to split the freehold title and have your own, you wouldn't particularly care about, say, letting your water run into the floor below.
I totally understand why we can't have our own freehold. We want to buy the common freehold with our upstairs neighbour. We are no closer and have no more shared intersests with the adjoining neighbours than we would if we were adjoining semis. Talking about water leaks and pets 7s no more relevant in my case than if it were semis. But people keep seeming to miss the point.

Earlier in the year the freehold was split to enable my neighbouring block of four to buy their common freehold. It cost them £11000 per maisonette, which included the sellers legal costs. To extend my lease so that my property is reasonably sellable, the Leashold Advisory Service have told me it will cost at least £30000 (without sellers costs) for just my flat.

I am no legal expert but from reading all the posts, I think the OP and ppl agree that the freehold can be split. However, it has to be done by the current owner or after buying the block if 4.

The owner split up the properties once before but doesn't seem willing to do it again or at least at the moment. That's the crux of the problem.

Or you and your neighbor buy the block of 4, then you can split the freehold afterwards.

The owner split up the properties once before but doesn't seem willing to do it again or at least at the moment.
He is willing. In fact he thinks he has to by law sell freehold if leaseholders want to buy. He has been told he has to split freehold up, by law. He has been told by solicitors he can be forced to split it up. He has told us he is willing to split it into blocks of 2 as it would cost him nothing because all the costs are met by the buyers of the freehold and it is a simple process to split it anyway. All those saying it is complicated to split the freehold this way, can they please tell me why it is. Stop mentioning shared roofspace, land, drainage etc. because there is none.
Again, he is willing, but told buy solicitors that he can't.
I am just questioning solicitors. They too mention shared land etc. when there is none. They seem unwilling to listen or at least explain.

It is very frustrating. If you read the full thread, you may see why I am frustrated. Post after post mentions shared land etc. when I have explained there is none. All the solicitors say the same. It is like it is just too logical and they can't see it or are unable to explain.

Again, the only land we share is with the opposite flats to us, who have already bought their freehold.
They haven't bought the freehold to their front gate or path to their front door however as they share that with us.

No-one on this thread can say why the solicitors have said no - you need to get them to point to the bit of legislation thats says no - then the experts on here can comment

Apologies for late further posting - I assumed the current freeholder would be unwilling to split based simply on what had been said up to the date of my post.
If they are willing to do so and the costs are not theirs then there seems to be no obvious barrier, based on what you have posted here, to doing what you have proposed.