Extend Your Lease guide discussion

richardw

Isn't a conveyancer just that, a conveyancer?

Do they have the same 'professional' obligations as a qualified solicitor?

SKPatel

The most important point to note from all this is to do your research and employ a professional albeit a conveyancer or solicitor who you have some confidence in. Unfortunately, there are now too many unqualified people offering legal services under the umbrella of a professional firm. Also, more times than not you get what you pay for and as your home is one of the biggest most important assets you will acquire, it is worth making sure it is handled with care.

seven-day-weekend

propertyman wrote: »

But your or my opinions and expectations are irrelevant, and in most cases misleading. I expect doughnuts to taste like they used towhen Clarks made them, but the world has moved on.

You can only expect a provider to provide the services that they offer which obligates us to take time and understand. Especially when it is one of the biggest single financial transactions that most members will undertake, takes a chunk of annual outgoings, and is the roof over their head.

:mad:This makes me angry that people are unbelievably self righteous and so ready to play the victim card, when if they devoted a fraction of the time spent on " sourcing" appliances and fittings, they would not be in a mess.

I just googled" I want to buy a leasehold flat" and what is the first result- leasehold advisory service.

C'mon-- "I didn't know about this"...please:rotfl:

I am sorry but far too often people are victims, but victims of their own self obsession laziness and expectations. Nothing wrong with a little humility and asking and even paying for advice now and again.

Fire and brimstone on a Thursday morning.......:o

But many people don't understand the types of tenure and the word 'leasehold' means nothing to them.They do not realise that there are other forms of tenure. Some people are not that savvy. And whilst it may be annoying to have to spell things out to them, it is not a crime to not know these things, and I think the professionals that they pay to work for them should explain clearly what they are taking on.

(And as I have added to my previous post, my son used the Senior Partner in a firm of Solicitors who was very thorough and explained all about the lease to him and in fact went through the small print with my son and explained all the details. He charged accordingly too, but at least my son got the best advice).

richardw

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

... I think the professionals that they pay to work for them should explain clearly what they are taking on...

I don't think a conveyancer is a 'professional' though.

NormW

propertyman wrote: »

I may have bad news for you, your expectations may not match the services provided and I suggest you look at the terms of engagement, which may simply have been for conveyancing purposes.

I state this as fact that your plight is not uncommon and it is largely a failure brought about concentrating on the lifestyle and home, rather than understanding what is being bought. Too little care is also taken to understand the services offered when buying. The prevailing expectation is that "someone should have told me" rather than "perhaps I should have researched more".

The principal caveat emptor is ancient and just as valid today, emphasis being on the emptor not jurisconsultus.

Start with the ToE.

If my expectations of the conveyancer were wrong then I fully accept that.

You're quite correct in that appear to have misunderstood was I was buying. As for understanding services offered, as a non-legal person "legal speak" documents are not easy to read and understand. However I accept that more questions should have been asked rather than just assuming - but I'd say suggesting carelessness sounds a bit harsh to me. The expectation is not "someone should've told me" it's "I thought I had paid someone to tell me".

If the conveyancer was under no legal obligation to point this issue out to me then I accept that. However, given it's importance I still think at the very least it would have been prudent/good practice for it to have been pointed out to me (in writing), especially as the conveyancer knew I was an unexperienced first time buyer.

If I don't have any case against them then so be it, I was only seeking an answer to that question, not suggesting that I did. Just exploring all possible avenues to resolve this issue.

As you say, this is not uncommon, so this makes it difficult and frustrating for me to accept the full responsibility at my door. If I was the only person, or even part of a small minority then yes that would be fair enough. However, as we appear to number in the hundreds or possibly thousands, it makes me wonder how we all managed to get it so wrong unless there is a widespread misconception on what conveyancing services actually includes.

Anyway, none of this resolves my situation, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Bella56

I know lots of posts say that you can't extend a Shared Ownership lease, but my HA has just started doing just that! :j :j :j
So might be worth asking your HA if you're shared owners nearing 80 years.

Tomo70

Bella56 wrote: »

I know lots of posts say that you can't extend a Shared Ownership lease, but my HA has just started doing just that! :j :j :j
So might be worth asking your HA if you're shared owners nearing 80 years.

Currently selling my 50% share with 73 years remaining on the lease, so was a little concerned with the Shared Ownership lease restrictions. However, my HA have been fabulous and will extend the lease -if required- for a very reasonable amount.

Not sure if there's been any change in the legislation regarding Shared Ownership lease extensions or it could be we have very good Housing Associations.

SKPatel

The Housing Associations can grant you lease extensions by agreement which is great for share ownership leases. No right to a lease extension exists under the legislation so you cannot force a housing association if they refuse.

richardw

NormW wrote: »

If the conveyancer was under no legal obligation to point this issue out to me then I accept that.

Have you had a read through of the terms of engagement for the conveyancer as propertyman suggested?

NormW

richardw wrote: »

Have you had a read through of the terms of engagement for the conveyancer as propertyman suggested?

I've read my paperwork about 3 times now, and am struggling to find something that looks like what I would think terms of engagement to be, but admittedly I'm not 100% on what I'm looking for in terms of actual wording.

I have the initial letter sent to me which has (*'s where I've paraphrased it):

"Title - r.e Your Purchase

Thank you for your instruction relating to your proposed purchase of the
above property. I confirm that I shall be very pleased to act on your behalf in this transaction.

*Paragraph of blerb in underlined bold about money laundering and asking for ID*

With this letter I am enclosing to you my firm's standard Client Care Letter setting out our likely legal charges and disembursements and *pay us for the searches now please, in double-speak*

*long paragraph about searches - Mining, Local and you don't need an Environmental search but we're going to drop the hint twice that it's an extra £34.08*

*Paragraph about extensions/structural alterations so planning consent can be checked if there's any, again in double-speak*"

That's it, now I have the letter sent with it, which is also titled "r.e. Your Purchase" and doesn't say it's a Client Care Letter anywhere but I'll assume as they share the same date that it is(*'s where I've paraphrased it again):

"*paragraph saying we're wonderful but if you have a complaint your contact is ....*

*paragraph about fees and disbursements including 'the estimate of our total legal fees in this matter would be the region of £325+VAT'

*table of charges/disbursements which is - legal charges, VAT, searches and fees, lessors registration fee, stamp duty, land registry and funds transfer*

*pay for searches now please and again with the pushing of environmental search, by the way we don't take cards*

*if there's a problem we'll charge more than the estimate of £325*

*if you don't complete there'll be a proportion of charges still left to pay*

*we can't advise you on investments*

*standard blerb call us anytime you want something*"

Sorry this post is so long, I've attempted to keep it short but all in, I can't see anything that looks like specific terms of an agreement. I also apologise for the huge dollop of sarcasm in some of the paraphrasing, but it's been a long day at work...

I have other letters but they're either "here's some paperwork" or "give us some money". I have a letter saying my contract is enclosed, and this one is where it mentions the "covenants and conditions contained in the title of the property" says a copy of the lease is enclosed and drawns my attention to the third schedule (which says pay your ground rent, keep the place in good repair, insure the building etc etc) then has the statement of the original lease term and when it commenced then the ground rent due date and amount. This is pretty much the only mention of the lease since the first letter where the "lessors registration fee" cost is stated.

Last letter they sent was basically "Land registry have completed registration, neither us nor your lender wants pre-registration deeds of documents so come and get them" end result being I have what looks to be a very original ribbon bound lease as in it has ink signatures on it, I really wasn't sure I should have it but they gave it to me.

Can anyone tell me how long a Section 42 Statutory notice is valid for from the point of it being served? As I'm thinking my only option is to serve the notice, then knock the cost of the lease extension off the sale price when I come to move.

Sorry again for writing war and peace....