Trouble with a vendor

kingstreet

How do prices vary between those sold with extended leases and those without? Notwithstanding the vendor's economy with the truth, is it possible the sale price already reflects the shorter lease?

A brief note through the doors of several flats which have sold recently may elicit the information required.

Ulfar

81 years is cutting it close to what most mortgage lenders will mortgage, this will be the reason for misrepresentation. Even if you buy, it will become an even bigger issue when you want to sell.

The current owner needs to commence extension arrangements, as you won't be able to for two years and the cost of an extension increases the shorter the term on the lease, 80 years is a break point where normally the costs rise significantly below that point.

The freehold share is a red herring. I would also be very concerned that the company holding the freehold will not give you figures.

To be honest this whole situation stinks and I would walk away or drop my offer by at least £20k or 30% which ever is greater.

Sensible_Jess

Ulfar wrote: »

81 years is cutting it close to what most mortgage lenders will mortgage, this will be the reason for misrepresentation. Even if you buy, it will become an even bigger issue when you want to sell.

The current owner needs to commence extension arrangements, as you won't be able to for two years and the cost of an extension increases the shorter the term on the lease, 80 years is a break point where normally the costs rise significantly below that point.

The freehold share is a red herring. I would also be very concerned that the company holding the freehold will not give you figures.

To be honest this whole situation stinks and I would walk away or drop my offer by at least £20k or 30% which ever is greater.

Agree with all of the above from personal experience.
Either the vendor 1) drops the price equivalent to lease extension costs or 2) You make it a condition of sale that the lease is extended before contracts are exchanged and he is to foot the bill.

for option (1) Ensure that you see the ACTUAL lease extension costs to you in writing from the freeholder, not some flim flam dreamt up by estate agents, the vendor or a bloke in a pub. Extending a lease that has <80 years to run is a lot more expensive due to 'marriage value' - there are plenty of topics on here or google to explain this term.


If the vendor is not prepared to do either of the above WALK AWAY

Sensible_Jess

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Yes, that is exactly what I said is the normal case. But you are missing the fact that I presented an argument for costs being claimable here. I would like to hear your argument whey costs should not be claimable for a false representation in the HIP - which was intended to be information that a buyer could rely on without need for further searches.

I seem to remember that buyers were told to take everything present in the HIP with a pinch of salt and to get their own searches etc done 'for peace of mind'.

Exactly why they were a complete waste of time and money and thankfully have now been scrapped.

muskoka

I'd walk away. As someone else has said 81 yrs is close to the limit as far as a mortgage is obtainable. Vendor may well come back to you down the road as any other purchaser is going to have the same problem.

There will always be another flat & likely better than this one.

zara*elise

Never be afraid to walk away. Sounds like the vendor is being sneaky as it is, I'd hate to see what else he's been hiding. Say you want £xxxx amount taken off the offer otherwise you'll walk away. If he refuses then it's his loss. He'll just have to hope he sells to someone who doesn't care about the lease.

pinkshoes

The vendor sounds like an unrealistic pratt! I would walk away. Are there any others in the block for sale?

tommie1shunt

At best the vendor has made whopping mistakes in his advertising blurb, and to be honest it smacks of lies, is there any more "mistakes" waiting in the wings to surprise you? I would walk away, don't look back, no, lets talk about this, one phone call saying "forget it pal."

ceridwen

tommie1shunt wrote: »

At best the vendor has made whopping mistakes in his advertising blurb, and to be honest it smacks of lies, is there any more "mistakes" waiting in the wings to surprise you? I would walk away, don't look back, no, lets talk about this, one phone call saying "forget it pal."

Walk - and wait.

ie wait for a better flat to come up and wait for any chance that presents itself to "land him in it" for having hurt you this way.

It doesnt sound at all good about the cost of the flat/length of lease/etc issue. I would also be willing to bet that maybe the flat is in worse condition than you think it is too....he's probably hidden all sorts of work that needs doing on it from you as well.

DVardysShadow

Sensible_Jess wrote: »

I seem to remember that buyers were told to take everything present in the HIP with a pinch of salt and to get their own searches etc done 'for peace of mind'.

Exactly why they were a complete waste of time and money and thankfully have now been scrapped.

But if they were supposed to be reliable, they would have cut out a lot of mucking around. They were intended to cut out nonsense like the OP has suffered - going into the purchase, spending perhaps £1500 and finding out about a showstopper 6 weeks later which could have been discovered on day 1 at no cost.

I would say that people are far too dismissive - it is attitudes such as yours which have maintaining a largely avoidable flow of buyers to these forums with problems similar to the OP's with time and sizeable amounts of money wasted. Perhaps I should drop in a remark about which is the more sensible approach, yours or the HIP?