Freehold and Leasehold for Pub/Bar?
"In the strictest sense of the words, Freehold and leasehold mean what you think they do. Freehold is that you own it outright and leasehold is a rental situation. That being said, there are scenarios like what Peter K. mentioned in his comment, where you're purchasing the building and business outright, but the land it sits on is actually being leased from a separate land-owner.  You may also be seeing the business itself being offered as freehold or leasehold. In this case, you may be purchasing the business of the pub from a pub company, but the building the pub resides in is leased from a property owner. The ""pub"" would be the business plan, decor, alcohol partnerships, etc. but not the physical structure in which it resides.  You should really look into hiring an Estate Agent to help you find what you're looking for. They will be able to assist in narrowing down your list, and may know of opportunities you're not seeing in ads." You should be aware that many pubs in the London (indeed, the UK as a whole) are sold as a leasehold with a beer tie. This typically means you pay less rent for the building and premises, but must enter a contract with the Pub Company to buy their beer and day-to-day supplies. You have the legal option to instead pay market rent for some (but not all) Pub Cos, under certain conditions. If you go with leasehold, the landlord can usually close your pub at their will. This is becoming a quite common occurrence in the booming real estate market of London. While your interest will be in running a pub, the Pub Co's interest will be in getting change of use planning permission and selling it to a real estate developer. Freehold is simple - it's when you own the building and the land it's on.  There's no rent to pay (but you will still have to pay taxes!). Leasehold is when the property is leased - rented out for a fixed period that could be anything from 6 months to 199 years.  There will be a rent to pay.  The person who owns the property is still the freeholder. There may be some confusion caused by what is being sold.  You can buy out a lease from the current leaseholder.  It's also possible to buy the freehold of a property that is currently leased to someone else. It is also possible to have a freehold building on leasehold land.
Hungarian Games provide the best live escape Game in  Dubai. Here you can get an immersive, live puzzle game, Football pool and more live game in which teams find clues and solve mysteries within a time limit. The lucky person is responsible for preparing and submitting the pool's entry. It will involve knowledge about the terms and plans.  Who keeps any result data up to date.It may involve a meeting at the pub to agree on the list of the other team members. I wonder this myself.  If an economic apocalypse actually came to pass, owning a bunch of gold bars - or shares in gold bars held somewhere else - isn't going to help you eat, or keep you from freezing to death.  The most valuable goods will be those with some utility - food, water, clothing, medicine, ammunition.  I think the financiers and their pornographers at WSJ forget that their entire world - and everything of value, power, and consequence within it - will cease to exist if the power goes out. The US is boxed in by its own trade policy, intentionally, so we can't, its [barred by free trade deals](http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Nick%20Skala%20GAT%20and%20Health%20Reform.pdf) since 1995, the three we are working on will even [bar it in other countries](http://www.oneillinstitutetradeblog.org/slovakia-prevails-investment-treaty-claim-concerning-universal-health-coverage/).   This kind of reason is what all the secrecy is for. Places can succeed with mediocre food.  They just have to price things right and/or have redeeming qualities making up for the meh food.  BWW just doesn't have anything to offer.  They're shitty to be in and their food is overpriced.  So why go there?  Improving the quality of their food probably wouldn't even matter that much because bar wings (and other bar food) aren't going to have all that much pull no matter how great they are. There are mechanisms for determining how valuable a property is without resorting to artificial government valuations that can rise/drop in relation to the local economy.  The most interesting I'm aware of is to force a sale of a property for X times the tax the person is paying.  So for instance if I value my home/business property at 100K and the forced-sale-factor is 100x then I would pay at **least** 1k/year for taxes maybe a bit more just to be safe.  This also solves the imminent domain issue.  That is a bit science-fictiony though.  In reality using an average of similar recent sales, while imperfect, is good enough.   &gt;Diversification is important in all kinds of investments.  I agree but governments can always raise rates or cut services or borrow in hard times, in general the property values should track fairly closely other forms of economic activity. I believe he was recommended by one of the investors. After digging a little deeper, it seems the person who invested the most (I believe they own 40%) has his wife doing the taxes and paperwork. We've tried to get them to show us the paperwork and they always seem reluctant. They claim that they're not getting anything either, but they're more of a mutual partner that was introduced to us by the third investor. Basically I invested with a friend, who introduced a third investor (who bought in at the majority). I think it was my friend who knew this manager and hired him due to a past relationship they had. For more insight, my friend actually owns another 2 bars that are quite successful, but it seems he's completely not invested in this one despite owning 30%. So, to be clear, you think a two year old, stunningly-beautiful property, is about to go vacant for an extended period?  Because I'll bet Reddit Gold, or anything you like, that it reopens, as a casino, probably before the end of the year, at worst - sometime next year.  Someone always gobbles properties like this up, the questions are who, how long does it take, when does it re-open, and can they avoid the same fate? "Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail.  Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way."