Ex-Council Flats - Pros and Cons

Lizling

My council block's just been reroofed. We had 3 years' notice so there's been time to save up. Also, the council allows it to be paid off in instalments or by putting a charge on your property so you don't pay until you sell. It's no worse than paying the typically higher fees you'd get elsewhere, imo.

Freecall

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Paying higher management fees and/or funding major projects that Council tenants don't have to contribute to.

But the council will have to pay and you as an 'owner' have taken on the role of the council in this respect.

You can't have it both ways, you can be a tenant who pays nothing more than rent or you can be an 'owner' who is responsible for meeting the costs associated with that position.


NB : I have used the term 'owner' to differentiate from council tenants although I recognise that in practice you will be a leaseholder.

Lord_Baltimore

Freecall wrote: »

But the council will have to pay and you as an 'owner' have taken on the role of the council in this respect.

You can't have it both ways, you can be a tenant who pays nothing more than rent or you can be an 'owner' who is responsible for meeting the costs associated with that position.


NB : I have used the term 'owner' to differentiate from council tenants although I recognise that in practice you will be a leaseholder.

I would not expect to have it both ways. But I believe it to be reasonable for the Council to pay a share of major works on behalf of its tenants and that's not necessarily the case.

For example, say there's a block of 20 flats for which the Council is freeholder and 12 of the flats have Council tenants. The freeholder can instigate a major project (like roof replacement) and charge the cost to the leaseholders of the remaining 8 flats. In effect, the privately owned (leased) flats foot the entire bill for the whole block.

Not all Councils use this approach but they can and some do.

jamie11

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I
For example, say there's a block of 20 flats for which the Council is freeholder and 12 of the flats have Council tenants. The freeholder can instigate a major project (like roof replacement) and charge the cost to the leaseholders of the remaining 8 flats. In effect, the privately owned (leased) flats foot the entire bill for the whole block.

Not all Councils use this approach but they can and some do.

Can you quote examples of that practice?

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

What does "concrete cancer" mean?

Norman_Castle

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

What does "concrete cancer" mean?

The concrete is crumbling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_cancer

Lord_Baltimore

jamie11 wrote: »

Can you quote examples of that practice?

Well, I have to confess that when I compiled the lists in my OP, I did so on the basis of search terms I can't remember and I can't again find the reference to the circumstances in my example. I admit it might even be hearsay or just someone on a forum laying it on a bit thick.

But then this is why I brought it here (where the contributors are pretty knowledgeable) and I would be happy if anything I've listed is shot down in flames.

I know I saw a reference to private leaseholders paying a contribution disproportionate to the cost of the project and that this was tantamount to the Council using private flats to subsidise Council ones but it might all be bs .

If anyone has experience to disprove it, please feel free to say so. From my point of view, it would be a positive.

Norman_Castle

I did so on the basis of search terms I can't remember and I can't again find the reference to the circumstances in my example.

Try a history search.

jamie11

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Well, I have to confess that when I compiled the lists in my OP, I did so on the basis of search terms I can't remember and I can't again find the reference to the circumstances in my example. I admit it might even be hearsay or just someone on a forum laying it on a bit thick.

But then this is why I brought it here (where the contributors are pretty knowledgeable) and I would be happy if anything I've listed is shot down in flames.

I know I saw a reference to private leaseholders paying a contribution disproportionate to the cost of the project and that this was tantamount to the Council using private flats to subsidise Council ones but it might all be bs .

If anyone has experience to disprove it, please feel free to say so. From my point of view, it would be a positive.

I think your idea that it may be BS is correct, it would be very unlikely that ONLY the private leaseholders would have to pay for major works.

OTOH councils are not known for choosing the cheapest quote for repairs to a building however they do normally give plenty of notice before they go ahead with them. It's the devil and the deep blue sea I'm afraid.

Lord_Baltimore

jamie11 wrote: »

I think your idea that it may be BS is correct, it would be very unlikely that ONLY the private leaseholders would have to pay for major works.

OTOH councils are not known for choosing the cheapest quote for repairs to a building however they do normally give plenty of notice before they go ahead with them. It's the devil and the deep blue sea I'm afraid.

It was probably something like these links that I saw:

New curbs against council rip-off repairs

Capping consultation