Legal Advice

PaulC5

AdrianC wrote: »

Certainly one of the more common setups, yes.

Thanks AdrianC, much appreciated, putting my mind at ease.

These builders are clever and must be making a killing.

Dan-Dan

New developments in my town , many hundreds of houses built by various large developers , none of them are leasehold

libf

PaulC5 wrote: »

Information from my solicitors:

• The house is leasehold
• There is Ground Rent of £250 per year which gets reviewed every 10 years from 1st January 2015 and is adjusted by multiplying it by the RP Index last published immediately before each review.
• There is also a separate Maintenance Charge of £186.73 in respect of the common parts on the development which can also increase if they see so fit.

Is this all standard on new developments these days?

No, not for houses. Might be standard Redrow, but not standard across all new developments. My Barratt house will be freehold, and I will not have to pay maintenance for the common green areas (this was originally planned but dropped before I reserved).

Flats are usually leasehold. Is it a coachhouse?

PaulC5

Dan-Dan wrote: »

New developments in my town , many hundreds of houses built by various large developers , none of them are leasehold

Not so greedy builders in your town then!

Where about is your Town if you don't mind me asking? Interesting to see why they wouldn't sell them as leasehold if they have the option to.

AdrianC

PaulC5 wrote: »

These builders are clever and must be making a killing.

<shrug> If they sold you the place freehold, the purchase price would have been higher.

If there was no maintenance charge, who would maintain those common areas? If the council adopted them, then the cost would have to come from council tax - if every similar development was adopted, then CT would certainly rise. Or other services would have to be cut.

As a council tax payer who lives elsewhere, why should I subsidise cutting the grass and fixing the streetlights on your estate...?

Dird

Who buys a house leasehold o_O

libf

AdrianC wrote: »

<shrug> If they sold you the place freehold, the purchase price would have been higher.

If there was no maintenance charge, who would maintain those common areas? If the council adopted them, then the cost would have to come from council tax - if every similar development was adopted, then CT would certainly rise. Or other services would have to be cut.

As a council tax payer who lives elsewhere, why should I subsidise cutting the grass and fixing the streetlights on your estate...?

But the new houses will also be paying council tax, so why should they pay council tax and not have their green areas and streetlights fixed? You could also use the new green areas and drive along the new streets...

PaulC5

libf wrote: »

Flats are usually leasehold. Is it a coachhouse?

No its a detached house.

G_M

I sympathise to some extent with the OP. Personally I'd never buy a leasehold house. OP is on a learning curve coming to terms with lease Vs freehold.

Now you understand, so you can make your choice: buy or walk away.

Or try negotiating? Ask the developer to sell you the freehold, but bear in mind they'll want money for this!

AdrianC

libf wrote: »

But the new houses will also be paying council tax, so why should they pay council tax and not have their green areas and streetlights fixed? You could also use the new green areas and drive along the new streets...

Should council tax also include the common areas of flats?
Apart from the lack of a roof, is there a big difference between those and the common areas of estate developments?