Missold a freehold

marksoton

Poor performance from the conveyancer IF they didn't point this out.

I'm also amazed the mortgage company didn't flag it ( Assuming there is one )

When buying anything leasehold it should be one of if not the first question asked.

AlexMac

Despite what Andrew says,

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. I find it extremely hard, if not impossible, for someone to buy a leasehold hold property thinking it was a freehold.

I think you should have a case against your conveyancer on the grounds that a 63 year lease will cost considerably more to extend than an 80+ one (and certainly than a freehold if you really thought that was what you were buying?) See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/extend-your-lease#calculator and associated guidance. So waht you bought is worth less than you thought.

Assuming you read the paperwork from your solicitor that is? If so, start with your solicitor's complaints procedure and work through the law society advice - google it.

Every time I've bought a freehold or leasehold house or flat (about half a dozen or more over the past 20 years at least) the solicitor has not just reported in writing just before exchange, but sat me down just before exchange and reported to me title, orally pointing out even infinitesimal glitches. (Once for example, a minor discrepancy between what the lease and the land registry said about whether a couple of metres of the external area was mine or communal space; on another occasion, the fact that the lease prohibited subletting other than for a minimum period of 6 months, so no 'holiday lets', and once that subletting required a declaration to the freeholder's solicitor by the tenant...)

On one occasion when I was on holiday and couldn't meet, they insisted I find an internet cafe and confirm back, in an email, that I'd read and understood the report on title...

And while it might be good practice rather than a legal obligation, they must owe you a duty of care; that's waht you pay 'em for. Good luck

marksoton

AlexMac wrote: »

Despite what Andrew says,
I think you should have a case against your conveyancer on the grounds that a 63 year lease will cost considerably more to extend than an 80+ one (and certainly than a freehold if you really thought that was what you were buying?) See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/extend-your-lease#calculator and associated guidance. So waht you bought is worth less than you thought.

Assuming you read the paperwork from your solicitor that is? If so, start with your solicitor's complaints procedure and work through the law society advice - google it.

Every time I've bought a freehold or leasehold house or flat (about half a dozen or more over the past 20 years at least) the solicitor has not just reported in writing just before exchange, but sat me down just before exchange and reported to me title, orally pointing out even infinitesimal glitches. (Once for example, a minor discrepancy between what the lease and the land registry said about whether a couple of metres of the external area was mine or communal space; on another occasion, the fact that the lease prohibited subletting other than for a minimum period of 6 months, so no 'holiday lets', and once that subletting required a declaration to the freeholder's solicitor by the tenant...)

On one occasion when I was on holiday and couldn't meet, they insisted I find an internet cafe and confirm back, in an email, that I'd read and understood the report on title...

And while it might be good practice rather than a legal obligation, they must owe you a duty of care; that's waht you pay 'em for. Good luck

Exactly.

Pedantry and insistence on full understanding are the best traits a conveyancer can have.

It's amazing how many people on here alone post that their representation is too over zealous and or too expensive.

Vectis

So, one of the biggest purchases of your life, many tens if not hundreds of thousands of Pounds, and you didn't do any research into what you were buying?

It's not a case of mis-selling. I'm assuming it was clearly stated to you the length of the leasehold?

Andrew_Ryan_89

Vectis wrote: »

So, one of the biggest purchases of your life, many tens if not hundreds of thousands of Pounds, and you didn't do any research into what you were buying?

It's not a case of mis-selling. I'm assuming it was clearly stated to you the length of the leasehold?

This it what I was referring to with my initial post. It would have been stated with the estate agent and all the paperwork you would have read and signed. You say you were miss-sold so you obviously know the difference between a leasehold and freehold property.

I'm no expert buyer but it's beyond me how a mistake like that could be made. If I was buying a leasehold property, I would think it would be "nice" for the solicitor and (especially) broker to let me know the pitfalls of doing so, but I would not blame them in the slightest.

If anything, I think it's more of an obligation for your bank or broker to let you know than your solicitor.

Doozergirl

Vectis wrote: »

So, one of the biggest purchases of your life, many tens if not hundreds of thousands of Pounds, and you didn't do any research into what you were buying?

It's not a case of mis-selling. I'm assuming it was clearly stated to you the length of the leasehold?

Why make assumptions and accusations based on thise assumptions?

Wait for the answer. If it wasn't poinred out as a potential problem (which we could equally assume given the lack of detail) then it would be negligent of the solicitor. We appoint them to signpost.

I am amazed, however, that the OP managed to find one of the mortgage companies prepared not to ask questions by co-incidence. Who sold this mortgage to them, estate agent's broker?

davidmcn

Doozergirl wrote: »

I am amazed, however, that the OP managed to find one of the mortgage companies prepared not to ask questions by co-incidence.

The lender relies on their solicitor to alert them to anything in the title which doesn't meet their standard minimum requirements - so if the solicitor didn't point out the lease term to the OP it seems plausible that they didn't tell the lender either.

G_M

Just guessing here of course but I expect

* the solicitor wrote a report warning of the short lease but OP did not read it properly or
* OP used an online conveyancing factory

But till OP returns it's all speculation.

Lungboy

I'm also guessing that "freehold" in the thread title was a typo.

G_M

Lungboy wrote: »

I'm also guessing that "freehold" in the thread title was a typo.

Not sure how 'lease' can be typed as 'free' as a typo - I think a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms is more likely.