Obviously take Gregsons' advice, but the usual structure would be for a company (which you may have to set up) to own the freehold, and for you and the other resident to enter into 999 year leases with the company ie the company is technically the landlord.  And the company's shares would be owned equally by the two parties.  If that is the structure, then it is really important that the company's rules require all shareholders and directors to be leaseholders, otherwise a leaseholder can sell and remain a shareholder.

Thanks for your advice Chorister. Yes it does help but in this situation there is no superior landlord. I am actually using Gregsons for the lease extension having seen them recommended on here.

Consent from the superior landlord to let is not unusual, but I suggest you get legal advice.  If the consent to let is included then I suggest (1) that there should be a provision that consent should not be unreasonably withheld and (2) that the let should be for a minimum of say 3 months to prevent Airbnbs.  I know that may cut both ways if you want to benefit from Airbnb, but on the other hand just think how your quality of life might be impacted if the other flat was filled with a revolving population of strangers.

I you do want legal advice then try Gregsons in Wimbledon.  I have used them for over 20 years, including on property matters, and have always found them sensible and efficient.

Hope that helps.

Hi,

Please can I ask for some advice?  I live in a purpose built maisonette with one other property in the building. Both properties have a Share of Freehold with a lease and I am working with my neighbour to extend our identical leases (as they have less than 75 years left on the lease).

My neighbour has asked for a new clause on 'Consent to let'' to be added to the new leases.  Is this normal? What are the pros and cons? Will it mean they have a right to say whether my flat is let or not?

I thought this was just something a mortgage lender asks for?

Thanks in advance for your advice.