A couple in their eighties who are joint leaseholders of a ninth-floor flat in a 10-storey block of 64 flats say they have lost their parking space and communal grounds after their landlord built a new development on land that falls within their estate, without ever consulting them.
The couple extended their lease in January 2024, and it was registered with HM Land Registry in January 2025. While reviewing the lease recently, the male leaseholder discovered that the landlord had constructed a new building on land within the area defined as the estate in his lease.
The development comprises 20 starter-home flats and replaced ten parking spaces, seven garages, and communal open space including grassed areas, trees and hedges. He said he was never consulted about, nor made aware of, any amendment to the lease to reflect the change.
Planning records show the application for the new building was submitted in 2018, when the site still consisted of garages, parking spaces and communal land. Despite the redevelopment, the definition of the estate in his lease has remained unchanged since the 1980s.
It was unchanged when the previous leaseholder acquired the flat in 1992, when the current leaseholder bought it in 2002, and again when he extended the lease in 2024, even though the new building had already been completed by then. The 2024 lease extension still refers to garages that no longer exist.
Residents of the new building now have exclusive use of a garden created on land that previously formed part of the estate shown in his lease plan. As a result, he says he has lost use of the parking spaces and enjoyment of the former communal open space, and worries about difficulties when he comes to sell the flat. The Land Registry title plan now shows the new building, but the lease itself still reflects the previous layout, including garages that no longer exist.
This is Money's response
Jane Denton, of This is Money, said the aftermath of buying a leasehold flat can be stressful and full of unforeseen pitfalls, and that with developers seeking to cash in, it is becoming increasingly common to see existing estates of flats developed further, with new estates springing up within estates or extra levels of flats added on top of existing ones.
She said the crux of the matter centres on whether the leaseholder was granted rights over the estate in respect of the parking space and communal grounds, which now do not exist. If such rights were granted, the landlord would have questions to answer over the new development, though the lease may also have granted the landlord the right to alter and develop the estate.
Denton noted that under the government's Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, new leasehold flats will be banned and replaced with commonhold, a system where residents collectively own and manage their buildings.
What the lease actually grants
James Naylor, a partner at Naylor Solicitors LLP, said: "If I could give you a simple answer, I would. Unfortunately, the short answer is: it depends. The longer answer? It depends on the lease."
He said the starting point is to examine exactly what rights the lease grants and what powers the landlord retained, paying particular attention to how the estate is defined, whether leaseholders were granted rights over parking areas, garages, gardens or other communal spaces, and whether the landlord reserved the right to alter, redevelop or build on parts of the estate. He added that the terms of the 2024 lease extension may also be important, particularly as it was completed after the redevelopment had already taken place.
Naylor said the key question is whether the lease granted specific rights over the areas that have since been redeveloped, or merely identified them as forming part of the estate, since land can form part of the defined estate without leaseholders necessarily enjoying a right to use every part of it. He asked whether the landlord reserved a right to redevelop those areas without leaseholders' consent, and whether the redevelopment interfered with any rights to parking or communal amenity space expressly granted under the lease.
"Put another way, was the landlord simply rearranging furniture within a room it still controlled, or did it remove something the lease had already promised to you?" he said.
Naylor said a lease plan may become factually out of date following redevelopment, but a plan that no longer reflects what exists on the ground is not, by itself, evidence that anything unlawful has occurred. Equally, he said, if rights granted to leaseholders have been removed, restricted or substantially interfered with, there may be grounds to challenge the position. Planning permission would not necessarily answer that question, he added, since planning rights and private leasehold rights are separate matters.
Lost rights versus lost amenities
Manjinder Atwal, director of housing and property litigation at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, said discovering that a lease refers to an estate layout that no longer exists is understandably concerning, particularly for someone considering selling their flat. However, she said an out-of-date lease plan does not automatically mean the lease is defective or that the property has become harder to sell, although it deserves closer examination.
Atwal said the starting point is the lease itself, which while it defines the estate, many leases also give landlords the right to redevelop parts of an estate or make changes to communal areas. But she said that if the lease grants specific rights over parking spaces, garages or areas of open land, those rights cannot necessarily be taken away simply because the landlord decides to build on them.
She said what makes this situation unusual is the timing: the new building had already been completed when the lease was extended in 2024, yet the lease appears to describe an estate that no longer existed, raising questions about why the documentation was not updated and whether the lease accurately reflects the current position.
Atwal advised the leaseholder to ask the landlord for an explanation and to find out whether there is a deed of variation, supplemental lease or other legal document that records the redevelopment and explains how existing leaseholders' rights were affected, noting the position may have been regularised elsewhere even if the lease itself was not amended.
If no such documents exist, she said the next question is whether the leaseholder has actually lost legal rights or simply lost amenities, since a landlord may be able to alter the appearance of an estate if the lease allows it, but removing rights granted under a lease is a much more significant legal issue and cannot simply be done by default.
Given the value of the home, Atwal said this is one of those situations where a relatively small investment in specialist legal advice could save a great deal of uncertainty later, with a solicitor able to review the lease, the Land Registry documents and the planning history to establish whether rights have been affected and what remedies may be available. If the landlord has exceeded the powers granted by the lease, she said, the leaseholder may be entitled to challenge the position or seek compensation.
