Purchasing a leasehold property often involves lengthy legal procedures that may be unfamiliar, especially for first time buyers.  Several post completion fees arise after the purchase has been completed, typically requiring payments to the freeholder or the management company (or their managing agent). This article explores the usual post completion fees associated with buying a leasehold property.

Notice of Assignment and Charge Fee

Most leases specify that the assignee (i.e., the buyer) must serve a Notice of Assignment to the freeholder and/or the management company to formally inform them that the lease has been transferred and that the buyer has become the new tenant. This ensures that the freeholder and/or management company is aware of the change in ownership.  Sometimes, the freeholder and management company have separate managing agents, requiring the buyer to serve the Notice of Assignment to each party separately.

If the buyer purchases the property with a mortgage, a Notice of Charge may also be required to notify the freeholder and/or management company of the lender’s interest in the property.

The fees usually cost between £50 – £300 + VAT.

Deed of Covenant Fees

Some leases require the buyer to enter into a Deed of Covenant, pledging to comply with the covenants and conditions set out in the lease after completion. This ensures that the new tenant adheres to obligations such as paying service charges, becoming a member of the management company, and following house rules.

The lease may include a standard form for the Deed of Covenant. Sometimes, the freeholder’s managing agent or management company provides a draft deed or must approve the one prepared by the buyer’s solicitor.

A fee is typically charged for drafting or approving this document.  The fees usually cost between £150 – £300 + VAT.

Certificate of Compliance Fees

The leasehold register of the property may include restrictions requiring the freeholder and/or management company’s consent for the transfer. To complete registration at the Land Registry, a Certificate of Compliance is required to lift these restrictions.

The freeholder or management company (or their managing agent/legal representative) will issue the certificate once all lease requirements have been met—such as full payment of service charges and ground rent, and proper service of the Notice of Assignment. Without this certificate, the buyer will be unable to complete title registration with the Land Registry, which can have serious legal and financial consequences.

The freeholder and/or the management company may charge an administrative fee for issuing the certificate of compliance.  It usually costs between £150 – £300 + VAT.

Membership Registration Fees

In some cases, the buyer will be required under the lease to become members of a Residents’ Management Company (RMC) or Freehold Management Company (FMC) upon completion of purchase.  A membership fee may apply typically £50 – £200 + VAT.

Issuance of Share Certificate Fees

If the buyer is required to hold a share in the Residents’ Management Company, the management company’s agent will issue a share certificate after completion.  The leaseholder should keep the original share certificate in safe custody as it will be required when selling the property in the future.  A fee may be charged for issuing the share certificate and usually costs £50 – £150 + VAT.

Conclusion

There are several post completion requirements when buying a leasehold property.   Buyers are advised to work with experienced solicitors to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to satisfy with all these requirements, protecting their investment and ensuring a smooth property transaction.

Lisa’s Law’s highly experienced conveyancing team will be able to proceed your transactions smoothly and effectively. Contact us today to instruct us on your behalf as part of your leasehold purchase.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, Parliament undertook a comprehensive review of building regulations and fire safety protocols. This led to the introduction of several new fire safety measures, including the Fire Safety Act 2021, which came into force on 16 May 2022. The Act clarified the scope and responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, particularly in relation to residential properties. This article explores the legal requirements of fire risk assessment (FRA) in residential properties in England and Wales.

What is a Fire Risk Assessment?

A fire risk assessment (FRA) is a systematic review intended to identify potential fire hazards, assess the risks to occupants, and implement measures to mitigate those risks. It should include “general fire precautions,” which cover the reduction of fire risks, provision of safe and effective means of escape, systems for detecting and fighting fires, and arrangements for actions to be taken in the event of a fire.

An FRA must cover the common parts of a building, such as stairwells, entrance halls, and corridors. It must also include aspects of the building’s structure — including external walls, doors, windows, and any features that may affect fire spread.

Does My Property Need a Fire Risk Assessment?

According to Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, a fire risk assessment is required where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises. This means that most types of residential buildings — including purpose-built apartment buildings, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), and converted flats — are subject to FRA requirements. The only general exception is for a single private dwelling.

This requirement can also extend to maisonettes, which are multi-storey premises where each flat has its own private exit and where there are no shared internal common areas.

Who Should Carry Out a Fire Risk Assessment?

The responsible person is the individual or organisation with control over the premises. This is typically the freeholder, landlord, residential management company, managing agent, or Right to Manage Company.

The responsible person must ensure that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment is conducted, that a record of the assessment is maintained, and that all actions required under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 are complied with.

How Often Should a Fire Risk Assessment Be Carried Out?

The law does not specify a fixed timeframe for how often an FRA must be carried out. However, it must be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains up to date — particularly if:

• The building has undergone major changes (e.g. extensions, conversions, or refurbishments).
• There is reason to believe the current FRA is no longer valid.

Government guidance suggests that for low-rise buildings (up to three storeys, built within the last 20 years), an FRA should be reviewed every two years and a new FRA conducted every four years. For higher-risk buildings, it is recommended that the FRA be reviewed annually and renewed every three years.

The FRA report usually includes a recommended review or reinspection date, which should be followed. Additionally, some mortgage lenders now require a current FRA report; an outdated or expired FRA may be deemed unacceptable during property transactions.

Conclusion

A fire risk assessment is a critical component of residential fire safety. In most cases, it is a legal requirement — especially for buildings with shared areas or multiple dwellings. Single private domestic premises remain exempt, but best practice still encourages informal assessments.

The responsible person must ensure the property complies with fire safety legislation. Failure to do so may result in serious legal and financial consequences, and more importantly, may place lives at risk.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

What happens if you think there is an error on the title register of your property? Can you alter such a title register mistake?

The answer is yes, but be aware that you will need to provide valid proof, especially if that mistake involves other’s land. What amounts to valid proof of a title registration mistake? A recent judgement in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) sheds some light on this.

The Tribunal recently heard an appeal case, Mr Kayalaipilai Suhitharan v Mr Henryk Jan Iwaskiewicz [2025] UKUT 144 (LC), and decided the First Tier Tribunal erred on their judgement in relation to a mistake on first registration. The Tribunal stressed again that title to registered land in England and Wales depends upon the register, not upon deeds. Although the register can be altered if it contains a mistake, and sometimes preregistration deeds can be evidence of a mistake on the register.

 Background

The case involves 2 neighbouring freehold properties, number 4 and number 2 in Bedford. The Tribunal was showed plans of the land before changes were made by the land registry.

One plan shows the original boundary of number 4, including an area added in 1996. The other shows number 2 with the disputed land shaded, before any changes. The disputed land includes a garage with a large door and a driveway where cars are parked. The garage has a door into number 4’s garden.

The Respondent bought number 4 in 2000. He believed that the disputed land was part of his property based on the estate agent’s brochure, which described a driveway and garage belonging to number 4. He used the driveway and garage without problems until 2019, when the Appellant bought number 2. The Appellant then objected to the Respondent parking there and installed a bollard to prevent it. In response, The Respondent applied to the Land Registry to clarify his ownership. The legal framework relied on is Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, on rectification on title.

Notably, the Respondent did not provide the deed showing his ownership or his solicitor’s files from 2000. He argued that older deeds from the 1940s indicate the disputed land was part of number 4, suggesting a mistake was made during the land registration process when the land was left out. He did not specify when the registration took place.

At First Tier Tribunal, the Judge considered the evidence provided but had ignored the need to find two mistakes: both the omission of the disputed land from the title to number 4 and its inclusion in the title to number 2 and had not establish the nature (including the timing and the manner) of the mistakes.

Principle of Title Registration

The Judge directed the register to reverse the alteration on the title based on FTT’s decision. He concluded that the Respondent did not demonstrate that the land was incorrectly omitted or included due to a mistake. His failure was not in finding a mistake per se, but in proving that such a mistake occurred. He did not examine historic copies of the register, which are available for inspection, nor did he investigate when the properties were first registered or when registration became compulsory in Bedford.

This limited investigation prevented him from uncovering explanations such as sale transactions or adverse possession that could clarify discrepancies. The evidence he presented only showed discrepancies between the register in 2019 (and at his purchase in 2000) and the register in 1946, nearly 80 years prior. Such a long period makes discrepancies insufficient grounds to claim a mistake.

The judge highlighted that the principle of title registration is that ownership titles for registered land depends on the registration process itself, not solely on deeds or historical records. Therefore, inconsistencies with older deeds do not automatically indicate errors on the register.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Owners of neighbouring properties may make boundary agreements during their ownership to define the boundaries of their properties and set down the rules and conditions of the parties’ conduct regarding or about the properties, requiring them to do something or prohibiting them from doing something, such as fence maintenance, right of way and light.

A frequent question raised by buyers in the course of conveyancing is whether they, as new owners, will be bound by such boundary agreements by previous owners and hence need to be aware of them. This issue was most recently dealt with by the case Bishop v Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC).

Background

In summary, Bishop v Jaques, concerned an appeal regarding a boundary dispute between Graham Porteous Bishop (the appellant) and Linda Margaret Jaques (the respondent). The dispute was over the boundary between a strip of land known as “The Avenue,” owned by Mr. Bishop, and the garden of Beacon Cottage, owned by Mrs. Jaques.

Both The Avenue and Beacon Cottage were originally part of a larger estate called North Lodge, a substantial house with extensive grounds situated on North Trade Road in Battle. The Avenue lies immediately to the west of Beacon Cottage’s garden and leads from North Trade Road past Beacon Cottage to further cottages and other land that was once part of the estate.

Beacon Cottage was conveyed out of the North Lodge estate in a 1949 conveyance to Francis Garret Ridley. While no copy of this conveyance survives, a memorandum from a 1954 abstract of Mr. Ridley’s title includes what the FTT considered an accurate copy of the 1949 Conveyance plan. This plan depicts the western boundary between Beacon Cottage and The Avenue (referred to as the “roadway coloured green”) by a solid line, indicating a boundary feature taller than 12 inches.

For Mr. Bishop, The Avenue provides access to a potential development site, which also belongs to him. The width of The Avenue is crucial and decides whether such development is feasible.

Among the various evidence adduced by both parties was a memorandum signed between the previous owners of The Avenue (and North Lodge) and Beacon Cottage in 1971, which provided that “the strip of land and the trees thereon which forms the western boundary of Beacon Cottage is the property of the said Stewart Grant Dewar”. The relevant issue is whether this memorandum is binding on Mr Bishop and Mrs. Jaques.

If the memorandum was held to be binding on the parties, it would mean that the Avenue was much narrower and hence would not be able to support the proposed development. Mr Bishop argued that it should have no binding on him, as it was made between the previous owners of the properties and he was not aware of it.

On the other hand, Mrs Jaques argued that the memorandum defined the boundary of the parties and should be complied with, irrespective of whether the parties were previous owners or current. She also argued that she had been in adverse possession of the disputed land since at least 1980 and had acquired title to it before the commencement of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Judgment

The FTT did not agree with Mr. Bishop’s argument and dismissed his application on the following three points:

• The memorandum was decisive and clearly defined that the trees and the strip of land on which they stood were part of Beacon Cottage.
• It was consistent with the historic paper title established by a 1949 conveyance of Beacon The FTT concluded that the line of pine trees that lined The Avenue in 1949 was most likely the feature intended to mark the boundary in the 1949 Conveyance.
• If the previous findings were incorrect, the FTT alternatively found that Mrs Jaques had acquired the title by adverse possession nevertheless.

Mr. Bishop appealed against these conclusions to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), which also dismissed his appeal. The Tribunal upheld the FTT’s finding that the 1971 Memorandum was a valid and binding boundary demarcation agreement. This agreement definitively established the boundary, making the other grounds of appeal regarding the 1949 paper title and adverse possession irrelevant to the outcome.

Our thoughts

Lisa’s Law does agree with the Tribunals’ above findings. Agreements of a proprietary nature like the 1971 memorandum in this case between property owners defines the boundaries and other features of the properties. It limits what the owners can sell and pass on to their buyers and what the buyers can receive as new owners. They are surely to be bound by such agreements.

This case illustrates the importance of full disclosure of historic agreements concerning properties in the course of conveyancing, as it will enable buyers to fully assess what they are purchasing and whether they will be bound by an agreement made by two complete strangers to him!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio