Missold a freehold

Brown_Eyed_Girl

G_M wrote: »

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.

To be fair, my conveyancers have brilliant and feels like they've been through everything with a fine tooth comb. The only reason I didn't exchange weeks is because they've been pushing the other side to give details on stuff. Although, I imagine much comes down to the individual solicitor.

I'm struggling to see how a lease that short wasn't flagged before, either by solicitor, the surveyor/valuer or the mortgage company. If the OP didn't get a bargain on the price then that's concerning. Equally if they did, you'd have thought it would have raised alarms.

Lungboy

G_M wrote: »

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

I was thinking more of a brain-fart moment than anything.

ognum

OP, I tea lily do find it hard to believe you were unaware of the lease length, I have looked at the three back posts you have and it appears to be that you are very money savvy.

You have two detailed posts about whether it is better to rent or buy and a very detailed post about the cost of buying.

Would someone with this eye for detail really not read the lease?

Vect

Firstly, thank you for the many responses. I appreciate the time taken to respond to me.

Secondly, the title is a brainfart. I know the difference.

Thirdly, I did read the report stating the 63 years remaining on the lease. But I had no idea that this was "short". I compared 63 years remaining to the 99 year full term, which at a glance is 2/3 of the lease remaining. I thought this was fine. I had no idea of the pitfalls of marriage value and mortgage issues.

I've scoured through my correspondence, most of which is fortunately by email due to working away in America 3 weeks out of 4. There is no mention of any issue with a 63 year lease or why it might not be a wise move.

Based on what most of you are saying, I may have a case against my conveyancing lawyer for not bringing this to my attention as a negative. I'll opt to pursue this further.

To those of you who think I'm the equivalent of a Injury lawyer compo chaser, I'm unsurprised you overlooked the details from up there on your high horse. The forums are here to help one another, not satisfy your ego.

Regards,
Vect.

Guest101

But surely you did some research yourself before buying?

Thrugelmir

Vect wrote: »

Thirdly, I did read the report stating the 63 years remaining on the lease. But I had no idea that this was "short". I compared 63 years remaining to the 99 year full term, which at a glance is 2/3 of the lease remaining. I thought this was fine. I had no idea of the pitfalls of marriage value and mortgage issues.

I've scoured through my correspondence, most of which is fortunately by email due to working away in America 3 weeks out of 4. There is no mention of any issue with a 63 year lease or why it might not be a wise move.

Which lender did you obtain your mortgage through?

HappyMJ

Vect wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for the many responses. I appreciate the time taken to respond to me.

Secondly, the title is a brainfart. I know the difference.

Thirdly, I did read the report stating the 63 years remaining on the lease. But I had no idea that this was "short". I compared 63 years remaining to the 99 year full term, which at a glance is 2/3 of the lease remaining. I thought this was fine. I had no idea of the pitfalls of marriage value and mortgage issues.

I've scoured through my correspondence, most of which is fortunately by email due to working away in America 3 weeks out of 4. There is no mention of any issue with a 63 year lease or why it might not be a wise move.

Based on what most of you are saying, I may have a case against my conveyancing lawyer for not bringing this to my attention as a negative. I'll opt to pursue this further.

To those of you who think I'm the equivalent of a Injury lawyer compo chaser, I'm unsurprised you overlooked the details from up there on your high horse. The forums are here to help one another, not satisfy your ego.

Regards,
Vect.

You still have the option of extending the lease any time in the next 60 years.

How much is it going to cost to extend the lease in 2 years time?

How much would it have cost had there been 70 years left on the lease? Which is the usual minimum required for a mortgage term of 30 years.

What about if it had 82 years left on the lease? The optimal term remaining for extending the lease after 2 years of ownership.

thriftylass

To Vect's defence, if you don't know how the lease hold system works such an oversight can be easily made as in most counties you buy a house and it's yours (like up here). I would have thought the same, 63 lease out of 99, plenty of time.

moneyistooshorttomention

Guest101 wrote: »

But surely you did some research yourself before buying?

I can see how OP could have landed-up with this shortie/problem lease.

Now I've been reading the MSE housing sub-forum for some time - then I am well aware personally of the pitfalls of a shortie lease (having read various threads about this). However - if I hadn't been reading them - then I honestly wouldn't have the foggiest idea it could be a problem either and would just take remaining lease length at absolute face value.

Hence - I would also take it that my solicitor/conveyancer/legal executive would/should know about those pitfalls of a short lease and it would be up to them to tell me this fact I would have no way of knowing otherwise - and then leave the choice to me as to whether to proceed or no accordingly.

G_M

Nowhere (unless I missed it) does OP say he used a mortgage for the purchase.

If he did, yes, surprising the lender agreed, though as David said earlier, if the conveyancer failed to highlight to OP, he might equally have failed to highlight to lender......

Conveyancing warehouse?