Leasehold Nightmare

ledwards26

benjus wrote: »

Well the vendor might well be angry with the Estate Agent... but the part I don't understand is that EA listings will always state the tenure - and what kind of vendor doesn't look at the particulars prepared by the EA to market their property? Or see how their RightMove listing looks?

I was of the same thinking that they must display it, it doesn't state anywhere regarding the tenure, this is why we have asked and have proof they he said it was freehold !!!

My experiences of estate agents is a bad one :mad:

Jenniefour

Not EA's fault - the vendors knew the house was leasehold and they should have told the EA this at the outset. They chose not to tell EA. Either the vendors are very naive and didn't realise that there's a big difference between freehold and leasehold, or they were hoping it would slip under the radar and that's naive too. Unlikely, unless the solicitor is exceptionally incompetent. If anyone's pulling a fast one here it's the vendor. Vendors have no reason to be angry with EA - it was their responsibility to give the EA the facts. This is not the same situation at all as selling a flat - where EA knows there's a lease and they will ask if there's a share of freehold or not.

At least you know the house has been valued by the agent on the basis that it was freehold - so, presumably, the vendors can't come back to you with increased price.

hazyjo

Jenniefour wrote: »

At least you know the house has been valued by the agent on the basis that it was freehold - so, presumably, the vendors can't come back to you with increased price.

Agree with all you said - but would turn the last bit around to say that, actually, you are therefore paying for what you thought was a freehold house, not a short-leasehold one. Are you sure it's still worth what you offered, even if the lease is extended?

Also remember what I said about the ground rent going up too if the lease is extended.

Jx

katejo

hazyjo wrote: »

Agree with all you said - but would turn the last bit around to say that, actually, you are therefore paying for what you thought was a freehold house, not a short-leasehold one. Are you sure it's still worth what you offered, even if the lease is extended?

Also remember what I said about the ground rent going up too if the lease is extended.

Jx

I hope not to have to buy another leasehold but , if I did, I would make no offer until I had seen written confirmation of the lease length. It affects the offer from the start.

benjus

ledwards26 wrote: »

I was of the same thinking that they must display it, it doesn't state anywhere regarding the tenure, this is why we have asked and have proof they he said it was freehold !!!

My experiences of estate agents is a bad one :mad:

Sounds a bit fishy to me - maybe the EA did know it wasn't freehold, or wasn't sure which one it was. It's not normal to leave the Tenure field blank when advertising a property.

Jenniefour

hazyjo wrote: »

Agree with all you said - but would turn the last bit around to say that, actually, you are therefore paying for what you thought was a freehold house, not a short-leasehold one. Are you sure it's still worth what you offered, even if the lease is extended?

Also remember what I said about the ground rent going up too if the lease is extended.

Jx

Good question. Yes, OP thought they were buying a freehold house and EA has valued it as such. So are vendors going to extend lease or buy the freehold.

Vendor could well find themselves having to reconsider price as well.

Jenniefour

katejo wrote: »

I hope not to have to buy another leasehold but , if I did, I would make no offer until I had seen written confirmation of the lease length. It affects the offer from the start.

Agree - I would like to see it being compulsory for proof to be provided to EA prior to marketing so the lease length quoted on details can be relied on.

Benjus - I don't believe anything fishy at all going on with EA - this is a house, not a flat. Besides which all EA's send details for vendors approval prior to publishing/advertising so it was fairly and squarely in the vendors court to correct this when they saw the details. I imagine vendors thought they were going to get away with it - and I imagine EA is not too chuffed with them either.

ledwards26

Jenniefour wrote: »

Benjus - I don't believe anything fishy at all going on with EA

There is something dodgy going on with the estate agent, he confirmed to me on multiple times it was freehold, and after further investigation and looking into his files more it has been dictated as leasehold.

I'm not sure whether he assumed the property was freehold because it would be uncommon in the area, or whether as first time buyers he was trying to make a quick sale.

Doozergirl

Solicitors are there for this purpose. No way could an agent pretend a house was freehold and expect it to go through. The land registry documents will confirm it as leasehold as soon as your solitior requests paperwork.

The agent has made a mistake, but it won't be deliberate. The best outcome could only be what is happening now.

Jenniefour

ledwards26 wrote: »

There is something dodgy going on with the estate agent, he confirmed to me on multiple times it was freehold, and after further investigation and looking into his files more it has been dictated as leasehold.

I'm not sure whether he assumed the property was freehold because it would be uncommon in the area, or whether as first time buyers he was trying to make a quick sale.

OK, so there is a slip up on EA's part as well - he should have double checked it even if he thought it was highly unlikely. Vendors should have insisted on that correction when they checked the details. Most EA's know the implications of short leases and it is not in their interests to knowingly allow inaccuracies of that importance. There were opportunities to get this right. Poor communication between vendors and EA.