Buying flat, mislead on length remaining on lease

katejo

Ulfar wrote: »

Only 75 years on a lease is bad as you have broken the 80 years barrier where the costs escalate exponentially. 40 years is diabolical, I can see the OP having to walk away from this one.

The number of years was not 40. It was just 40 years fewer than OP had originally been told. He/she said it was about 70 which is still pretty bad. Sounds as though the seller/estate agent may have been hoping to con a naive first time buyer! OP could perhaps withdraw the first offer and make a lower one to allow for the cost of extending the lease or could give up on it completely and look elsewhere. Think I would go for the 2nd option. Depends how much money/time he has already spent/committed

seven-day-weekend

katejo wrote: »

As a previous owner of a leasehold flat, I think that ALL adverts for such properties should be required to show the number of years left on the lease. Potential buyers who are attracted to slightly cheaper properties shuld be able to see whether this is because of a shorter lease or whether the flat simply needs refurbishment/redecorating.
When I sold my flat, a buyer said I was asking too much because another similarly priced property viewed had been more recently decorated. However I later learnt that my flat had had more years left on the lease. As a buyer, a longer lease would be more important to me.

I agree.

Our son has just bought a flat with a 66-year lease (he was able to get a mortgage). He will renew the lease as soon as he can. However, he was able to lever the price down because of this short lease, even though the flat is immaculate inside.

number1pud

Howdie- 4 months ago our offer was accepted on a flat-(with a new 125 yr lease-) subject to gaining a share of the freehold. Got a survey b4 fully employing a solicitor..delayed that because the freehold aspect seemed to be/is on going- even though the e agent said the vendor ( who owns freehold of whole building ) was offering a share of the freehold to the other flat owners for virtually nothing. My solicitor uncovered that the latter was baloney:the flat owner is/was of course negotiating for a fee to sell share of FH..solicitor also found that the lease has just 69 yrs left. When we brought this info to the attention of the e agent- they claimed we were offered a share of the FH OR a lease extension... Who do we blame for these lies- agent and or vendor ? If there was recourse for getting wasted cash back- agents wouldn't tell bare faced lies and or gloss over details.We're left in limbo- no apology or further information. Disheartening - because naively we thought they were a good office- turns out they're true to the stereotype.

tim123456789

drjones wrote: »

Hello all,


Also, who is responsible for ensuring the information that the estate agent provided is correct? I've already shelled out £300 on a survey, if the sale falls through, can I make a claim against whoever it is, based on being misled by this incorrect information?

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks.

IMHO, you have a prima facia case against the EA for your aborted costs under the property misdescription act.

The lease length is a material fact that they should have got right and are wholly responsible for getting wrong.

HTH

tim

tim123456789

MrRee wrote: »

The vendor was clearly hoping for a cash buyer

Then he was a fool thinking that this cash buyer wouldn't notice and would go ahead (at the offered price) anyway.

The chances of this are slim. 30 years difference in the lease length is 30 grand difference in the value (for 200K property)

tim123456789

katejo wrote: »

How long were they required to keep their ex council house before selling it? I know there is a restriction but don't know the details.

re. leasehold flats: I would never buy one of these or even make an offer without knowing how many years were left on the lease. It would have to be min 85-90 for me to buy one. I would also want to research the freeholder and find out additional info from other residents. Mine was either a crook or simply incompetent.

I'd happily buy a short lease if the price was right.

Unfortunately, most EAs dont care about checking this info and just assume a long lease when they value the property. They then get a shock when the due diligence process exposes the short(ish) lease and the reduction in value that comes with it.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen properties that were previous SSTC come back on sale at a lower price with "note this property has a short lease" in the details.

FWIW I'm seeing one of these "we don't know how long the lease is" properties on Wednesday. The EA is going to get a lesson from me in why knowing is important!