Possibly, the BDM can ask for the lender’s view, but leaseholders’ ownership of the freehold does not automatically make the clause unnecessary.
A mortgagee protection clause usually requires the landlord to notify a leaseholder’s mortgage lender before taking steps to forfeit the lease. It gives the lender an opportunity to remedy the breach or protect its security.
Why share of freehold may not settle the issue
- The flat may still be held under a separate lease, even if its owner also owns a share of the freehold.
- The freehold may belong to a company or group of leaseholders, which is legally distinct from the individual leaseholder.
- The lease may still be capable of forfeiture, subject to the lease terms and applicable law.
So the key question is not simply who owns the freehold, but whether the particular lease and title provide the lender with acceptable protection if there is a breach.
What the BDM and valuer can do
The BDM can ask the lender’s credit or legal team whether it will accept the arrangement, or whether it will consider an exception. A valuer may comment on marketability and the property’s value, but generally cannot approve a legal-title defect or waive a lender’s legal requirement. The lender’s conveyancer or policy team will usually need to confirm acceptability.
It would help to provide the lender with the lease, the freehold title, details of how the freehold is owned, and any relevant company documents. A solicitor can then confirm whether the clause is absent, unnecessary, or capable of being addressed by a deed or other protection. The final decision rests with the lender, not the valuer alone.