Ex-local authority flat and major works bill - HELP!

beccad

suljka wrote: »

Thanks olly300.
I certainly hope so - however would like to know about this one before we decide either way. It is not necessarily the flat itself that is so problematic, as we understand bad point about ex-council properties and most will have some bad connotations, it is just incredibly annoying to be perceived by the EA as being unreasonable for asking for this type of information in the first place. Surely no buyer in their right mind would be proceeding to the next stage without having a look at this type of information. Or is there???
When the seller tells us there was a figure they were given by the council, but even though they can remember what that figure was they no longer have the letter to support their memory, huh, I wander what else might be amiss?
I equal it to let's say, putting an offer on a flat where you can't see the flat "because seller is no longer in possession of keys for the flat" :eek:
We're standing firm and unless they show some documentation to support their claims we are walking away :cool:



I'm becoming quite an expert in these searches as well, but so far I'm failing to find much stuff that's really useful in this particular case. Any suggestions and websites would be really appreciated

During our property search we've experienced some breath-taking arrogance by some agents, telling us that vital details aren't needed to make an informed decision and so on, and that no one else is interested in such tiny details. It does make me wonder whether the general populous is a bit blind to these sort of things. The thought of spending a third of a million on a property (roughly speak, our budget) and not having all the relevant info to hand before you buy scares me :eek:

olly300

beccad wrote: »

During our property search we've experienced some breath-taking arrogance by some agents, telling us that vital details aren't needed to make an informed decision and so on, and that no one else is interested in such tiny details. It does make me wonder whether the general populous is a bit blind to these sort of things. The thought of spending a third of a million on a property (roughly speak, our budget) and not having all the relevant info to hand before you buy scares me :eek:

No the general population isn't blind as most people normally have a parent, elder family member or trusted friend who tells them to get real.

EA are there to act for the vendors and sell the property. You don't need to have any qualifications or special training to be an EA.

olly300

suljka wrote: »

I'm becoming quite an expert in these searches as well, but so far I'm failing to find much stuff that's really useful in this particular case. Any suggestions and websites would be really appreciated

The best thing you can do in this case is ask people in real life and on here, if they know anything about x social landlord and how they manage repairs. The horror stories will then come out of the wood work.

BTW if you are looking for a flat one thing I've always been told is don't go for one with a lift regardless who the freeholder is or how old the flat is.

scooter_chick

Hi Suljka,

I recently sold an ex-LA flat that was undergoing major works. As other posters have said, there is a prescribed process that the LA must go through if the cost to the leaseholder is going to be over £250. You need to find out if the Section 20 notice has been issued & see a copy of that before you can progress.

When I sold mine, the agreement was that the buyers put in an offer based on the works having been done & then paid for by me. So they paid 'full' price - what we negotiated the flat was worth with its new roof in place. The solicitors have then held over a retention to the value of the Section 20 notice. If the final bill is lower, I get the difference. If the final bill is higher, then the buyers make up the difference - as others have said, the bill belongs to the property (or the owner of the property on the day the bill arrives).

In my case, the leaseholders had joined forces to put up a bit of a fight, and the Council had verbally revised their estimate to about £2k below the Section 20 figure. So my buyers were reasonably confident that the risk they were taking of a higher bill than the retention was low. Also, the Council are giving resident leaseholders the option to pay over 5 years interest free, so if they do need to pay something, it should be manageable. Final bill is not in yet (works were completed back in the spring), so no idea where it'll end up.

suljka

beccad wrote: »

During our property search we've experienced some breath-taking arrogance by some agents, telling us that vital details aren't needed to make an informed decision and so on, and that no one else is interested in such tiny details. It does make me wonder whether the general populous is a bit blind to these sort of things. The thought of spending a third of a million on a property (roughly speak, our budget) and not having all the relevant info to hand before you buy scares me :eek:

My sentiment exactly beccad - I've also been told by the EA that no one else is asking them for this much info, implying that I am being really unreasonable because I am insisting on it before proceeding. Even though I am sure there are many out there who don't ask much, I'm also sure there are many who actually do ask the questions that need asking. And I'd rather be labeled by EA as "fussy" than be sorry later on for not being "fussy" :eek:
After all... "A clever person learns from other people's mistakes, foolish one learns from their own..." And as much as that might make us all guilty of being foolish on occasion or two, buying a property really shouldn't be one of those occasions .
Thankfully :T forums like this one are brilliant as they provide an opportunity to ask and to learn from experience of others, but also to give invaluable "it happened to me" sort of advice... be both a teacher and a pupil so to speak

olly300 wrote: »

No the general population isn't blind as most people normally have a parent, elder family member or trusted friend who tells them to get real.

olly300 - not quite sure what you're implying here Maybe I just misunderstood?

olly300 wrote: »

BTW if you are looking for a flat one thing I've always been told is don't go for one with a lift regardless who the freeholder is or how old the flat is.

Thanks for the insight. Do you know why? I assume it is cost related, but in our case it would actually be real bonus as I have a disabled cousin who would then be able to visit.

neverdespairgirl

olly300 wrote: »

BTW if you are looking for a flat one thing I've always been told is don't go for one with a lift regardless who the freeholder is or how old the flat is.

Depends what floor you're on, I reckon (-:

neverdespairgirl

suljka wrote: »

Thanks for the insight. Do you know why? I assume it is cost related, but in our case it would actually be real bonus as I have a disabled cousin who would then be able to visit.

I live in a block with a (small) lift. Service charge is abour £2k a year.

olly300

suljka wrote: »

olly300 - not quite sure what you're implying here Maybe I just misunderstood?

I wasn't quoting you so don't get paranoid.

olly300

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Depends what floor you're on, I reckon (-:

I've lived on the top floor with no lift. Hurt my knee then ankle so spent 8 months buying most of my shopping online because I couldn't carry heavy stuff up the 4 flights of stairs.

The reason to avoid buying with a lift particularly if it's ex-LA is the service charge is generally higher and the cost of works on the lift are expensive. Plus the people I know who have flats with lifts in them have managed to get trapped in their lift. :eek:

Though you can get high service charges even if the flat doesn't have a lift as the building could be listed and/or you have a porter and/or the grounds have really nice communal gardens.

suljka

olly300 wrote: »

I wasn't quoting you so don't get paranoid.

I know you were not quoting me, not getting paranoid, just thought your remark was somewhat misleading in its implications, that's all... thought we were all on the same side here

Anyway, thanks for your input otherwise