Extend lease before marketing?

csgohan4

always_sunny wrote: »

What is the hassle? They just have to wait, so unless they plan to flip the flat... if the price is balanced...

It's a hassle as they have to pay for it and deal with the Freeholder. As someone with no experience with lease extension with freeholders, how do you expect FTB will see this having to deal with the lease, it's stressful enough to buy a house as it is.

always_sunny

marksoton wrote: »

Of course it's hassle.

As some of your own posts on the subject prove.

to me the hassle is the lack of legislations (so it seems) but if I have to compare to the hassle of renting in London it's not so different.
Hassle for hassle I may as well do the one with longer tenure.

princeofpounds

It's normally worth doing when the lease it under the mortgageable time limit. Relying on cash buyers only is typically a direct ticket to a less-competitive house sale. With respect to Lewjohn, who has his own point of view, he has 6 posts on the site so no track record of reasonable suggestions.


Make sure the valuation offered by the freeholder is actually fair (a slight premium to the statutory LVT formula is ok given it saves a lot in costs). Remember also that the statutory extension is for 90 years, not back up to 99 (although that would be enough for selling purposes and might be offered at a lower cost)

marksoton

always_sunny wrote: »

to me the hassle is the lack of legislations (so it seems) but if I have to compare to the hassle of renting in London it's not so different.
Hassle for hassle I may as well do the one with longer tenure.

Maybe in your case but for most buyers given the choice they wouldn't bother with a property requiring a lease extension.

always_sunny

marksoton wrote: »

Maybe in your case but for most buyers given the choice they wouldn't bother with a property requiring a lease extension.

in my case yes I agree - for others - everyone is different!
My main struggle right now is the seller LH management company is taking aaaaages to provide the infamous LPE1. Nothing to do with lease length. That's the unfortunate system of LH and I am getting wary of wanting to buy a flat if the LH management company is that lousy but I think it's hard to measure good vs bad ones

Nick0101

It really comes down to the cost of lease vs a decrease in property value - unfortunately the latter is not at all easy to find out, but even with 62 years it shouldn't have much of an impact on the sale.

Your agent should be able to provide some useful advice here. They will almost certainly have sold properties nearby with a similar length left on the lease.

csgohan4

Nick0101 wrote: »

It really comes down to the cost of lease vs a decrease in property value - unfortunately the latter is not at all easy to find out, but even with 62 years it shouldn't have much of an impact on the sale.

Your agent should be able to provide some useful advice here. They will almost certainly have sold properties nearby with a similar length left on the lease.

Alot of lenders have a minimum of lease remaining to offer a mortgage, some are 70 years for example. So it would impact on the same since the majority of the market are mortgage receivers.