Missold a freehold

Vect

Hello folks,

I bought my first house (maisonette) recently and have no discovered that I've been given quite a burden.

Despite neither the estate agent nor any of the lawyers mentioning it, I've found out that a leasehold of 63 years is actually useless. The original lease was 99 years and the threshold for extending 'cheaply' is 80 years. Under 60 years is practically worthless, I'm told. What a stupid set of laws.

Given that no party has mentioned the trap of such a short leasehold, do you think I'm able to claim something on the grounds of being missold? I certainly wouldn't have bought it had I known.

After scraping together every last penny for the deposit and fees, I'm now going to be rinsed again, just so I can keep my mortgage competitive after the initial period is over.

Regards,
Vect

mrginge

Did you not question the length of the lease when you were in the process of buying?

Kynthia

You were sold a lease of 63 years and presumably no one hid that from you. Therefore you weren't missold. Your solicitor should maybe gave explained the consequences of a short lease to you. Did you have a solicitor that you met with or a conveyancing firm?

davidmcn

Your subject line doesn't match the story, but anyway...

What did your lawyer tell you about the lease? If they overlooked the short term, then your initial claim would be against them.

Nobbie1967

I'm surprised your mortgage lender didn't raise this as an issue. I was under the impression that they were unlikely to grant one on a property with a lease under 70 years.

theartfullodger

There are two sorts of people...

- those who when they make a mistake recognise when it is down to them - if it is - and get on with life without expecting others to sort it out

- those who always seem to think it's someone else's fault & want their compo...

Richard_Webster

If your solicitor didn't explain the implications of a 63 yewar lease - that you would find it hard to get another mortgage on it or sell it without paying out a large sum to extend the lease, then he is negligent.

Go to a solicitor who specialises in professional negligence claims and he should be able to recover your loss. You did read any written report your solicitor sent you and it contained no hint that there could be a problem with such a short term of years - is that right?

Andrew_Ryan_89

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If your solicitor didn't explain the implications of a 63 yewar lease - that you would find it hard to get another mortgage on it or sell it without paying out a large sum to extend the lease, then he is negligent.

Go to a solicitor who specialises in professional negligence claims and he should be able to recover your loss. You did read any written report your solicitor sent you and it contained no hint that there could be a problem with such a short term of years - is that right?

But why would the solicitor be responsible? All there job is to do is legally transfer the property into your name and let you know if there are any issues regarding searches and boundaries. I find it extremely hard, if not impossible, for someone to buy a leasehold hold property thinking it was a freehold.

davidmcn

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

But why would the solicitor be responsible? All there job is to do is legally transfer the property into your name and let you know if there are any issues regarding searches and boundaries.

It would make solicitors' lives much easier if that were the case!

They ought to report to you (and your lender) on anything else in the title which would affect its value or marketability, and a relatively short lease term is one such thing. It's not up to a purchaser to figure out for themselves what the lease means.

chappers

No, a solicitor has a duty of care to ensure that his client is aware of the potential legal consequences of the actions he is about to carry out for that client, it is then down to the client to instruct the solicitor accordingly.

Buzby

When I bought my house, it had a 970 year lease... it was 999 years when built. The mortgage company were a pain, but eventually agreed. A lease of 67 years clearly meant just that so I'm unsure why or what a missold assertion could usefully achieved. You wanted to buy, but expected your agent to tell you not to because the lease was 'only' 67 years?

That would be difficult to pursue - your responsibility would be to avoid purchasing anyleasehold property... but they usually cost more!