Am I liable for previous leaseholder’s debt?

Reply to the comment left by Jim K at 08/10/2025 – 11:00
This is almost right.
The lease will identify when individual costs ought to be paid. There is an argument that a demand, that comes after completion, for costs that occurred before, is the responsibility of the previous leaseholder.
But here’s the problem: if they refuse to pay, the only course of action the landlord can take is forfeiture of the lease, which falls upon the current leaseholder. This means inevitably that the current leaseholder ends up paying rather than forfeit the lease.
This is exactly why the solicitor should have established whether there were any outstanding charges, and demanded these be taken off the asking price and/paid to the landlord on account. He didn’t.

Reply to the comment left by Steve Rose at 15:16

Steve
Please read my earlier post. It is very likely the right to forfeit for a 2021 debt has been waived.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 08/10/2025 – 16:20
You’re quite right, Ian, I admit I ignored your post because I thought it all related to the “after 1995” opening statement.
I thought the chance of his lease being so recent was slim, but if it were then you had already provided the answer.
Unbelievably, somehow, 1995 is thirty years ago (so not so recent afterall). How did that happen?

Before a lease can be forfeit there has to be a notice served by the landlord regarding outstanding service charge arrears, and word for word the covenant in the lease alleged to have been breached and allowance for the contributions in arrears to be rectified. If not then a determination by FTT who will require copies of the annual audited service charge accounts and a certificate for the amount outstanding signed by company secretary of the management co.

If these documents are not provided to the FTT then the FTT will reject the application and the outstanding arrears will be spread between the other leaseholders as an extra charge not allowable as service charge under the lease agreements or a cost to the freeholder.

Much better if the landlord had pursued arrears at the time.

I had this issue when I bought mine about 15 years ago, think the debt for maintaince was £1.5k

I spoke to my solicitor who arranged the purchase, they said the information from the sellors solicitors was confusing. They then paid the debt for me and said they would claim it back themselves from the seller.

Seems they have a responsibility to let a buyer know of any debts maybe?

Hi. I was billed £4000 odd for service charges that the previous owner should have paid when selling. I wasn’t in ownership of the property during that period and am not liable and the council confirmed it’s not my debt. If you didn’t own the flat during that period, I don’t see how you can be liable.

Sheridan Vickers

Service charges are due under the provisions in lease and attach to the property. You buy the lease to the property and the arrears.

Generally if landlords haven’t pursued the arrears it’s because there is an issue about how the service charge demands and payments have not been accounted for in accordance with the lease and the landlord & tenant act and trust law.

If the service charge are not properly demanded in accordance with the lease and the law, then they are not payable.

So if the service charge accounts withheld at transfer or assignment of the lease then a big red flag 🚩

Reply to the comment left by Kizzie at 09/10/2025 – 16:09
Yes you’re right. My solicitor made sure the seller’s solicitors gave an undertaking to pay off the arrears owing to the freeholder, the Council on completion.

My son had the same a couple of years ago. I sent them an email with the following extract and an invitation for a discussion with their legal representative.

“S.23(1) Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 provides that the incoming leaseholder does not inherit the default of the outgoing owner. So, if the breach arose prior to the assignment, the landlord must take steps to ensure that the outgoing leaseholder has addressed those breaches (paid his service charge or some other matter) before the sale completes, because, as a rule, he cannot pursue the incoming tenant for that breach. The important, and often overlooked, point here is that the onus is upon the landlord and not the incoming leaseholder as the incoming leaseholder is protected by the above provisions.”

Suffice to say that they backed down immediately

Grumpy Doug

Did you or your son find out why the management company was not pursuing the service charge arrears in accordance with the lease and landlord & tenant covenant act and law of property act 1925.

Otherwise it is an ongoing issue. It suggests the former leaseholder knew the management co. was not performing their obligations under the lease and law so could not be pursued.

And raises the issue again that the conveyancers/solicitors did not demand from the seller of the lease 3 years accounts and final service charge demand and did not check if there were outstanding arrears for which their client would be liable. This is misrepresentation.

Unsurprisingly management company backed down because they didn’t want investigation and instead these arrears unlawfully added to the service charge either for your son or spread between all the leaseholders.

The only income is the service charge so it has to come out of that.

This leaves the issue outstanding for the current leaseholder when they come to sell/assign/transfer the lease.