Freeholder has destroyed my property

chantkarma

I was hoping someone could tell me what might happen in my situation (from the mortgage company point of view)

I have been to lawyers who say I 'could' take freeholder/ council/ mortgage company to court but on a single income I do not have the means to do it.

I have spent +£20K over a year in rent/ solicitor/ surveryors fees etc trying to get to justice but now have no choice but to walk away. I had the property valued to sell which would come in £40K under what I owe.

Essentially the property (an extension) was built on unsupported garden walls; not to the blue print submitted to the council. The roof is inadequately tied and collapsing also in part due to the 9inch thick support walls! I have tried to persue the freeholder who has had 3 lots of builders who have left the property in a worse state then before. The council have also tried to help and in part paid for my surveyor (who identified the extent of the problem) to help put it right - not that they admit fault!!!

My biggest problem is that I was a first time home buyer and didn't get a survey done, relying on the banks because for the first property I looked at their survey said the same thing as the survey I paid for. Initially (2 years ago) when I approached the mortgage company they read out a survey over the phone to me that describe the whole building but not the flat I live in. But subsequently they have said I have no right to see the survey - even though they gave me a copy of the 1st houses. I have also tried to write to the survey company but was redirected back to the mortgage comp.

I am worried that with the deterioting state of the flat I will be in for extreme debt if I hand the property back and they auction it for pitance. But the freeholder in uncontactable and I have no money left to do any work myself. Also would an IVA be of any use in the long term?
Please help

Dave101t

this makes little sense!

peterbaker

Oh come on Dave, be patient ... it was thin on introduction, but I only had to read it once ...

The OP bought a flat which it now seems clear was "gerry-built" by the cowboy freeholder as an extension to an existing building, almost certainly flagrantly in breach of planning and building regulations.

The freeholder's attempts at rectifying the structural problems were also highly questionable and have made the flat worse.

The OP's mortgage company are now reluctant to divulge the contents of the (basic) valuation survey.

Basically the builder/freeholder has defrauded the OP and the mortgage company and now the mortgage company seem to be evading the real problem and instead are hovering like vultures to gain redress from the OP if he/she defaults on the mortgage.

I know little about how the OP can pursue this, but I sympathise. In so far as the OP's flat never existed until it was created as a new extension, would it not have been treated as 'new build'. So did the flat not come with some kind of 10 year structural faults guarantee e.g. NHBC or Zurich insurance? I thought most mortgage lenders were always reluctant to lend on new build unless this was so. Perhaps it was 'conveniently' overlooked if the mortgage company was somehow associated with the freeholder in offering mortgages on the whole building.

It sounds like the main building was a conversion, so I suppose no structural guarantee was required for loans on leases sold within that.

Can the OP tell us who introduced him to the lender, if his was the only flat which was not part of an existing building originally, and whether there was any 10 year guarantee insurance? Also can we assume that the builder/developer remains the freeholder (many developers sell the freeholds after they have sold the last flat/house on a site).

Also, I'd be interested to know who the lender is, and the builder/freeholder.

chantkarma

Thanks Peter,

you've expanded on the situation correctly. C&G is the lender, my bank introduced me to - with which I still have a bank loan that they arranged for deposit. No NHBC as it was demeed to be a conversion (garage 9" walls converted to create my property when entire Vic terrace had an overhaul). Freeholder (who is also developer) tried giving away all freeholds but leaseholder have refused, given extent of problems in all conversions.

Additionally the 2 bathrooms in my property where poorly fitted resulting in severe joist rot that effected property below. Freeholder did tackle this problems as other flat holder in with Leaseholder Association (renting property out) who started court proceedings for lost income etc...

The above is just to illuminate extent of the problem. But I've been trying to arrange meetings/ interventions etc but all amounting to lies. I cannot begin to tell you the toll on my own health, so I need an out with the least amount of damage

Regards

silvercar

One option is to sell up and hope the buyer doesn't have a full survey. A lot of people don't have full surveys on flats, thinking that as leaseholders they can rely on the freeholder for the state of the building.

dunstonh

My biggest problem is that I was a first time home buyer and didn't get a survey done, relying on the banks

The bank's is just a basic valuation for lending purposes. Often they dont even go inside the property. It does not give the same protection as a homebuyers report or a full survey.

Not getting a survey is a gamble. Its a bit like insurance. If you dont pay for it you dont get the benefit should something go wrong.

I dont know the answer here but wish you luck. Do you have legal expenses cover on your home insurance?

opinions4u

dunstonh wrote: »

Do you have legal expenses cover on your home insurance?

Or does your fee charging bank account provide it?

Or your trade union?

Or even (real long shot) your employer?

maninthestreet

Doesn't the 'Caveat Emptor' rule apply here??

liubeliu

silvercar wrote: »

One option is to sell up and hope the buyer doesn't have a full survey. A lot of people don't have full surveys on flats, thinking that as leaseholders they can rely on the freeholder for the state of the building.

Unless the defects are so noticeable that the valuer/surveyor during mortgage valuation deemed it unsuitable for mortgage purposes.

lee636

maninthestreet wrote: »

Doesn't the 'Caveat Emptor' rule apply here??

Unfortunately id be inclined to agree. Buying a property is a big step and research should have been done on the first basic steps to that investment.

Put the place on the market, see what interest there is and if you get an offer go with it, if they do a survey you will have to sell very heap or pull out, if they don’t then you will have passed the problem.