Finding out that the lease has 942 years left diminishes my interest somewhat. My original reasons were that it potentially makes the property easier to sell or extend in the future. Plus just the satisfaction of owning the land outright. I should probably do some online research and try and find a case of someone in a similar situation and see what they paid. I think a figure in the low to mid £100s would be acceptable to me.

The bit about writing to them confidentially is very clever, but how much should I offer? The Freehold valuation tool above suggests that with a property worth £100,000, a £9 per year ground rent and 942 year lease, that the Freehold value is 0. If I were buying a business that generated £9 annual profit, I might offer 10-20 times that value if I wanted to buy it. But I can’t see them accepting £180 for the Freehold.

Success! I phoned the mortgage lender, and the lease is 999 years from the year the property was built, 1964. So by my maths, there are 942 years left on the lease.

I've just contacted the solicitor who did the conveyancing and they advised me that they don't keep any documents for more than 6 years, and that any documents they had relating to their casework on my house will have been destroyed. I then completed the online Land Registry form and paid the £3 to see the Title Summary for my Leasehold, and all it told me was information I already have, my name, my mortgage provider, the amount I paid for the house. No reference to the length of the leasehold. I suppose the next thing I could try would be to see if my mortgage provider has it on record.

Thank you for this! This at least gives me a ball park figure. I don't actually know how many years are left on the lease. I've looked at the Land Registry document examples, and can't find where the length of the lease is stated. I don't want to pay for further documents unless I am pretty confident that they will provide me with the remaining duration of the lease.

Hi, I just wanted to post an update here. I followed the advice above and obtained the name and address of the Freeholder from the Land Registry for £3. I wrote directly to the Freeholder, explaining that I am the Leaseholder and wish to discuss purchasing the Freehold. I asked the Freeholder to provide me a quotation and terms. A few days later I received a letter from the property management company in response to my query asking for £90 to provide me with a quotation. It seems there is no escape from this [problem] property company, even when I try to engage with the Freeholder directly, they foist me off on to them. I really don't want to pay the property management company anything other than a reasonable administration fee (say, £10-£20). Is the Freeholder entitled to just defer my query to the property management company in this way? Any advice on next steps?

No. I thought it was fairly common practice for the solicitor to store them in a vault. I mentioned an inheritance. For example I’m dealing with another property at the moment and the solicitor the deceased used to buy their home in 1967 had all that.

I don’t recall, but it was 15 years ago. I will contact the solicitors firm I used for conveyancing and see if it is with the deeds, which I know they hold. Thank you.

Thank you! I will read these ASAP.

Hello all Just looking for a bit of advice please. I own and live in a house which I bought in 2003 on a 25 year mortgage. Since that time I have been paying a tiny ground rent (it’s about £4 semi-annually) to a property management company. I have received an inheritance recently and decided I would try to find out how much it would cost to obtain the freehold on the land my house is built on and how long is left on the lease. This weekend I sent two separate enquiry emails to the property management firm. The first reply I received contained a letter saying they want £90 to provide a quote for buying the freehold. I had only just recovered from the fee they are wanting to send a couple of emails when they responded to my second letter stating that they want £210 to look for the leasehold document to send me a copy from their archives, which they will refund 50% of if they can’t locate it! So they want £210 to answer a question and £105 not to! Does anyone have any suggestions on how I ought to proceed? Many thanks.

The 'Areas' vary in geographical size, but in simple terms, yes it does mean that, if enforced. Someone else mentioned injunctions above, I didn't realise it would have to be a high court injunction and the costs involved though, I think it is highly, highly unlikely that they would be that desperate to keep me or vindictive to be honest. Thanks for your advice!

Hi becky, The term 'Areas' is defined in the contract. It refers to the delivery areas which the government divided the country up into, for the service that my employer provides to the government. In each of these areas of the country, of which there are around 25-30, a number of companies bidded for the right to provide the service in question. In my area, three companies won the contracts. These three companies have each subcontracted the delivery to other companies. The geographical size of the area in question would mean that I could not reasonably gain employment in the same industry without relocating as I do not drive, even then, it would be a long commute each day to work with a new employer outside the 'Area' in which my employer operates. Hope that makes sense. The clause, if enforceable, would prevent me from working for about 6 other companies, all of whom offer better salary terms. The other key thing is that as far as I know, the specific job I do is not one which is needed by any other companies who are not in competition with my employer in one way or another. It does seem to be it would be a restraint on trade, from what others have posted above. I very much doubt they would take an injunction out. If I do leave in the future I wonder if I am obliged to tell them where I am moving to, if that would 'solve' the potential problem, if I just refuse to say where I am going, or tell them I am going travelling or something.

With the best will in the world, normally I'd agree with you on this, however, I'd honestly have signed it in either case. I was out of work for a while before I got my current job, I enjoy working there, and would have to be seriously distressed about something to kick up a massive fuss. I'm not expecting to get the clause rescinded or anything like that. In short, me posting this one side of signing the contract or the other almost certainly wouldn't have changed whether I agreed to sign it or not. I was/am in my probationary period as well, they could just get rid of me if they didn't want me and I have no rights whatsoever.

Hi Sidewinder, thanks for your reply, really appreciate it. To give a little more detail/background on the situation. My colleague who told me about the non-compete clause said that a few employees at the same level as me have expressed concern about it and been told "don't worry, it's just for managers" - which begs the question why is it in our contracts? Someone who does a slightly different role to me, but on the same level, has this week been offered a job with another company which competes with my employer, but for a different area of this other company's business entirely. She has been told by my employer that they want her to leave as soon as possible, and not serve her notice period, because of "a conflict of interests between the contracts" - but they haven't even put her on garden leave. So perhaps I am worried about nothing. Other than customer information I have access to company training materials and stuff of that nature, which is the company's intellectual property, but nothing technical, and have no visibility of the company's future strategy, other than that communicated to all employees in conferences and so on.

Hello all, Its been a long time since I have posted on CAG, but it was the first place I thought of in relation to a nagging issue which has arisen and I thought perhaps someone might be able to definitively answer an employment related question here. I have been employed full time by a private company for the last six months. A month or so ago each employee was asked to sign an updated version of our contract of employment. We were told by our manager that there were a few minor changes. I signed the contract, and despite what I am about to post below, do not regret doing so, because prior to joining this company I had been out of work for a while, and I am happy where I work. That said, there are a number of other private companies which do similar/the same type of work in the area, and the company I work for notoriously pays lower salaries than the industry average. The vast majority of colleagues who leave the business go to work for another similar company for more money, and turnover of staff is unusually high, I would say, because of this pay gap. A colleague mentioned to me recently that the new contracts we all signed contained an updated 'non-compete' clause in our contracts, which reads as follows: The Company I work for provides services to a government department. In my role I come into contact with customers and their details, but I do not have any detailed specialised knowledge other than that which I brought to the role through my background and skills. I do not build or maintain business relationships or operate at a senior level. Is my employer just fed up with people leaving to go to work for similar businesses? What would happen if, in the future, I resigned and joined a similar business within the same Area within a 12 month period? Would my current employer have any legal recourse? How can it be reasonable to prevent a person from going to work for another company? I would not share confidential or sensitive information or undermine the business interests of my current employer, but I am very good at my job and could probably earn 30-40% more elsewhere. Just to be clear I have no intention of leaving my current employer at this moment in time, but might well do in a year or so. Thanks.