New build lease length less than stated - do I accept?

elise83_2

I received docs from my solicitor yesterday regarding my purchase of a new build leasehold property. The apartments were marketed as having a 125 year lease but now the actual lease document states the 125 year lease started in June last year. It may seem a small issue but I don't see how they can claim the lease starts in June last year when the apartment wasn't even completed at that stage. Surely the 125 years should run from the date of the original lease agreement with the landlord which would be now?

Just wanted to know if anyone knows of the legal issues behind this or whether this is standard practice? Thanks in advance.

silvercar

I don't think its a big issue.

SplanK

125 years is not very long really! Don't some lenders get twitchy at 75 years... ok its 50 years away but might make it harder to sell in the future depending on how long you keep it for....

on a side note - if its advertised with 125 years... then really - you should get 125 years.... not 124 and 3 month's - also depends if there is any small print as well! You would be best speaking to your solicitor about this and see what they suggest!

poppysarah

I wonder what else won't be as you expect. Leasehold house?

silvercar

Its an apartment, the lease was written when the legal work was done. There is little you can do to change it. If you insist on a lease extension (of a whole year?!) the legal costs of the work will be more than the value of the lease extension.

timmyt

SplanK wrote: »

125 years is not very long really! Don't some lenders get twitchy at 75 years... ok its 50 years away but might make it harder to sell in the future depending on how long you keep it for....

on a side note - if its advertised with 125 years... then really - you should get 125 years.... not 124 and 3 month's - also depends if there is any small print as well! You would be best speaking to your solicitor about this and see what they suggest!

gibberish.

and all development leases start on the same date, so the first one sold was probably the start date for them all.

dont even bat an eye at this whole post. 100% irrelevant.

enjoy the new property

elise83_2

Thanks timmyt for the reassurance - what you say makes sense. Even though it seems a relatively minor detail I didn't want to be ripped off in any way because of my inexperience. If it's a usual situation then that's fine.

SplanK

timmyt wrote: »

gibberish.

and all development leases start on the same date, so the first one sold was probably the start date for them all.

dont even bat an eye at this whole post. 100% irrelevant.

enjoy the new property

why is it irrelivent?! I had it drummed into me when i was looking for houses by various people that short leasehold is are potential trouble.. infact if you did a search on here there are many threads where new or existing owners of properties with short leases (75 years or less) start to experiance problems with getting mortgages!

Richard_Webster

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmyt
gibberish.

and all development leases start on the same date, so the first one sold was probably the start date for them all.

dont even bat an eye at this whole post. 100% irrelevant.

enjoy the new property
why is it irrelivent?! I had it drummed into me when i was looking for houses by various people that short leasehold is are potential trouble.. infact if you did a search on here there are many threads where new or existing owners of properties with short leases (75 years or less) start to experiance problems with getting mortgages!

If you are going to own the place for 40 years or so then it could be an issue, otherwise not.

More relevant is the track record of the builder in selling the freeholds a few yaers down the track. Who do they normally sell to? Some builders sell to some very dodgy rip off property companies and you can then get caught when you are selling with some unreasonable fees of one kin d or another.