Trouble with a vendor

Richard_Webster

The seller may have told deliberate porkies but in my experience, particularly with leases, people get ever so confused and really don't understand what is going on half the time.

We get loads of people who have bought a flat putting up posts about "buying the lease..." You can't - you already own it - "Buying the freehold..." is what is meant. So folk get the terminology confused.

Nef_2

Many thanks for all the replies. Certainly helps to read all the different takes on this.

Richard_Webster wrote: »

OK, so there seems to be a company owning the freehold and some flat owners presumably have share in it and others don't and the company is prepared to sell you a share?

Thats exactly right. The only figure we have managed to get for share of freehold is £2500 back in 2003, so I would think that its likely well over 10k today. In any case, I agree that this whole share of freehold business is a bit of a red herring, and we should be looking to have them extend the leasehold instead.

Having spoken yesterday to the agent and my solicitor, it seems that the vendor believes that he can just remarket the property and get the same amount of money. He has refused to even cover the costs of a survey.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In almost every circumstance, you cannot claim from the vendor for anything which arises before exchange of contract. It is totally untested territory, but if a false representation was in the HIP [and only in the HIP] I think that you could argue that the vendor should bear costs.

I've been told that there may be two options here.
a) as the agency provided information in writing to us (emails) on the lease that later proved incorrect, we might be able to claim for them.
b) as the leasehold information provided in the HIP was wrong, we may be able to claim based on that.

Question is whether the costs of doing so end up outweighing any gains, so assuming the sale falls through, will have to chat through this properly with our solicitor next week (he's suddenly disappeared on hols and Ive been left with an 'in situ'..)

kingstreet wrote: »

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?

Very good question and there just so happens to be another flat on the market, same spec (slightly larger in fact), with share of freehold already in place - on for exactly the same price as what this one was marketed for, so suggests that we would be grossly overpaying were we to proceed as is. We are having a look at the other one this week.


All in all, think we will just go back with two proposals.

a) We request that the lease be extended prior to exchange, as a condition of sale.
b) We request that the asking price be lowered by an amount equivalent to the cost of extension (whatever that might be..). We couldnt really do it on an estimate, so he would need to call in surveyors (which we could perhaps offer to pay half the cost of).

Based on the 'head in the sand' attitude the vendor has shown so far, I highly doubt he will agree to either, but at least we will have done all we can.

Thanks again for all the replies - will update on how we get on

DVardysShadow

Nef wrote: »

All in all, think we will just go back with two proposals.

a) We request that the lease be extended prior to exchange, as a condition of sale.
b) We request that the asking price be lowered by an amount equivalent to the cost of extension (whatever that might be..). We couldnt really do it on an estimate, so he would need to call in surveyors (which we could perhaps offer to pay half the cost of).

I know nothing of leases, but I would strongly recommend a over b. You have to be insitu for 2 years to have the right to an extension. This one is so close to the point at which the place becomes unmortgageable that if you needed to make a quick move, you might have a problem.

As for calling in a surveyor, call in your own at your expense, if you must do b. If the vendor has to call in the valuer, then the vendor is the client, even if you pay half, and you get the vendor-is-client answer rather than the buyer-is-client answer you need