What's better: Ground or first flr flat?

Fire_Fox

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You seem to be on here an awful lot; is it really soooo boring where you live?:o

Look, I'm not going to soothe your dissatisfaction by giving you an argument.

A freeholder is not a leaseholder - and a leaseholder is not a freeholder.

A freeholder may write themselves up a lease (if they want to!) and they'll decide what goes into that lease, but as they're their own bosses - for want of a better term - they are not beholden to freeholders demands, given that THEY themselves are the freeholders.

Understand?

Do some research rather than spouting nonsense. :rotfl:

Fire_Fox wrote: »

No dear it's you who are mistaken, the owner is one of the freeholders AND a leaseholder.

"Virtually all flats in England and Wales are owned with leasehold title. Even if the owners have acquired the freehold title the leases of the flats still continue - meaning that the owners are still bound by the lessee's obligations contained in the leases - but the freehold is divided between the flat-owners."
http://www.fridaysmove.com/leasehold...e-freehold/256

Fire_Fox

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You need to get yourself a life, luv.

You're stuck on this board 24 hours a day! Normal? I don't think so!

You must have a God-awful lonely life where you live. It's a shame you can't afford a car - you'd be able to get out more and meet people maybe? Your whole life seems to revolve around this forum, you probably spend more time on here than Martin's staff do!!!! And unlike them you don't get paid for it! But then you're not an expert are you....and even Google gets things wrong sometimes! But some fools believe everything they read!

"MORE ABOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS AND AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS ... BUT Writer B decided to attack the character of person A instead. This attack was not an argument; it was a ploy to discredit Person A so that Person A's argument would be rejected by others in the newsgroup. I see this as a form of verbal abuse. And when someone like Writer B uses such an argument, Writer B has lost by default because Writer B did not play by the rules of reasonable discourse.

Flames do not meet the standard of netiquette and should not be treated as worthy of a reasonable response. I encourage anyone who has been subjected to this kind of verbal abuse (flames) on the Internet in newsgroups, discussion groups, mailing lists, in message threads, in emails, when using USENET or posting comments on a blog (weblog) to respond in this manner: "In your last response to my post (or email or comment) you engaged in a personal attack. You have tried to discredit my argument by discrediting me as a person. You have used the fallacy of an Ad Hominem attack rather than refute the logic or reason of what I said. Therefore, you have lost the discussion and I will not respond further to your posts."
http://www.abusivelove.com/abuse_types_1_14.htm

amblondon

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You seem to be on here an awful lot; is it really soooo boring where you live?:o

Look, I'm not going to soothe your dissatisfaction by giving you an argument.

A freeholder is not a leaseholder - and a leaseholder is not a freeholder.

A freeholder may write themselves up a lease (if they want to!) and they'll decide what goes into that lease, but as they're their own bosses - for want of a better term - they are not beholden to freeholders demands, given that THEY themselves are the freeholders.

Understand?

:T

Absolute rubbish

robatwork

A lot of flats have written rules about what kind of flooring you are allowed - you may prefer laminate/wood but be forced to use carpet for example if you aren't on the ground floor.

Also consider shopping - if you're physically OK then no problem but at a certain age thoughts of dragging bagfulls of shopping/bicycles/furniture up stairs may not appeal