Barratt Homes Extra Charges for Freeholders

bclark

Pete9501 wrote: »

Plus if the council don't adopt roads and street lighting then there are big bills due in years to come so a sinking fund is needed. Just escaped from this nonsense and have no intention of being caught again with £2400 pa charges on a free hold house.

£2400!! That's crazy, we pay £240 for ours.

You shouldn't need massive fees to create a sinking fund when we are just talking about roads and street lighting.

outragedchris

I am saying that there is a charge to Freeholders to changing their mortgage on our estate. It has recently increased by 27% to £258.
I would like to know if other Freeholders on Barratt Estates pay to change their mortgage and if so, how much they pay.

outragedchris

In the case of Barratts, they do not need to set up a maintenance company as they often seem to use Peverell which also uses the names OM and FirstPort. The actual cost of the maintenance is often less than 50% of the cost charged to house owners with the rest being the "management charge"

moneyistooshorttomention

outragedchris wrote: »

I am saying that there is a charge to Freeholders to changing their mortgage on our estate. It has recently increased by 27% to £258.
I would like to know if other Freeholders on Barratt Estates pay to change their mortgage and if so, how much they pay.

How could they find out you had changed your mortgage? Would it be possible to just keep schtum about it on the grounds that its none of their business (particularly considering that it is indeed none of their business).

I have been reading an increasing number of threads here on MSE about various charges being made on freehold houses. I don't think I've read that anywhere else and, if it wasn't for threads like this wouldn't have the foggiest idea that this sort of lark goes on (be it fees on the one hand or having to hand over money towards maintenance of new roads local Councils are supposed to have adopted on the other hand).

It looks like time for a huge raising of consumer awareness that this sort of lark is going on. Potential housebuyers need to know that there are indeed some standard freehold houses with these distinctly NON-standard fees happening. Have you thought of going to the media about this and suggesting an expose tv programme about all these sort of larks being applied to some new standard freehold houses?

It wouldn't have occurred to me for one minute that a standard ordinary freehold house would have "outside" charges applied to it - they just don't in my mind.

Now these MSE threads have happened - then forewarned is forearmed - but most people wont know this sort of thing goes on and do need to be warned to check if it does on any new house they buy.

patman99

I think that if I found myself in such a property, I would leaflet the residents to invite them to an all-site meeting to discuss going self-managed with the view that we would then hand the common areas and any unadopted roads to the Crown (This happened to such a road in Colchester 4 years back).

The Crown would then pass the day-to-day management of these assets to the Local Authority to keep up to standards.

As for fees for putting up satellite dishes, my workmat had a covenent on a new build he purchased last year banning the erecting of ariels and dishes on the house. So he bolted a scaffold pole to his shed and put the sat. dish on that instead.

outragedchris

There is a clause in the agreement that the maintenance company cannot be changed until 5 years after the development is complete plus a 50% vote in favour of change. There is no quick fix.

bclark

patman99 wrote: »

I think that if I found myself in such a property, I would leaflet the residents to invite them to an all-site meeting to discuss going self-managed with the view that we would then hand the common areas and any unadopted roads to the Crown (This happened to such a road in Colchester 4 years back).

The Crown would then pass the day-to-day management of these assets to the Local Authority to keep up to standards.

As for fees for putting up satellite dishes, my workmat had a covenent on a new build he purchased last year banning the erecting of ariels and dishes on the house. So he bolted a scaffold pole to his shed and put the sat. dish on that instead.

The Crown and the local authority wouldn't accept responsibility for the assets.

That's pretty much the reason for these charges nowadays, the Council are not adopting these new areas in order to save money and insisting that responsibility is left with management companies instead.

moneyistooshorttomention

:idea: Where's a lightbulb lighting up smilie when you need it?:cool::whistle:

I'd read on here that there is an element of local Councils not adopting roads in new-build estates (as they are due to) sometimes these days.

Duh! Of course - if they don't adopt them...its not just down to not having to find money to pay for the maintenance of these roads - there's also the (probably vain) hope that those new estates won't be built in the first place.

at the fact that thought has only just struck me - ie the "Well...that's one way to help discourage new building". Wonder if that is part of why this happens?

But bclark may have a point there - and maybe this is all just part of the trend I've noticed over the last few years for "everyone and their dog" to try and find ways to shift their expenses onto other peoples shoulders.

bclark

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

:idea: Where's a lightbulb lighting up smilie when you need it?:cool::whistle:

I'd read on here that there is an element of local Councils not adopting roads in new-build estates (as they are due to) sometimes these days.

Duh! Of course - if they don't adopt them...its not just down to not having to find money to pay for the maintenance of these roads - there's also the (probably vain) hope that those new estates won't be built in the first place.

at the fact that thought has only just struck me - ie the "Well...that's one way to help discourage new building". Wonder if that is part of why this happens?

But bclark may have a point there - and maybe this is all just part of the trend I've noticed over the last few years for "everyone and their dog" to try and find ways to shift their expenses onto other peoples shoulders.

Local councils definitely want new build estates to be built, most are desperate for more.

They have targets imposed on them by Governments and they get all that nice council tax money. They just don't want to become liable for maintaining the infrastructure that those estates bring and that's why these Maintenance companies have become so widespread and freeholders have annual charges.

On the new build estate that I live on the council have been selective and they have adopted the roads that the buses operate on and the areas around the new school (One that has added to the provision within the local authority but they didn't have to fund) but no others.

moneyistooshorttomention

Ah right...perhaps it varies according to which Council one has then. I don't think the thought even crossed mind of my last Council - or any of us living there - of getting up to this sort of malarkey.

I watch with astonishment at the way the public sector bodies (including Councils) in some parts of the country do their darndest to say that everything possible isn't "theirs" (even when they know very well that it IS theirs) - ie as a way of trying to ensure they aren't the ones paying for upkeep.

One of the considerations that I expect doesn't occur to many people living in these "should-be-Council" roads is what happens if someone has an accident on one of those roads that is caused by the state of the road and, due to it not being maintained by the Council, might be looking round (in this Compensation Culture day and age) for "someone to sue for compensation" for that accident. I wonder what happens in those should-be-Council roads about that?