Barratt Builders - Miss-selling

Chocolate58

BARRATT BUILDERS - MISS-SELLING (YES ANOTHER ONE!!)




We purchased a 2 bedroom flat from Barratts in 2008. We asked at the time about the percentage of houses that had been allocated for social housing and were given a plan of the development (which we still have) showing the social housing numbered. It was to be 17%. We then heard from the Site Agent that they were selling the houses at a largely discounted rate but wouldn't allow us to exchange our flat and move to one. The rest of the houses were then sold to a housing association. There is now a 52% ratio of social housing on this development. It has had a massive, negative impact on our property value. We have also had lots of issues with a small number of the SH tenants, involving the Police, Victim Support and Housing associations. Barratt also promised us that we would be given the first refusal (a legal requirement) to purchase the freeholds. They didn't offer us this and passed it to a freehold company who in turn gave us a nightmare management company. They deny everything. The CEO has been involved but he just wants us to get our solicitor to contact theirs. This isn't a route we can afford to take, but what are our options? We believe that (a) We were miss-sold the property as we would never have purchased a property on a development with over 50% social housing (b) They did not observe the legal requirement about offering us the first refusal to buy the freehold. We cannot afford to let this one go and have been contacting them about this for a long time, but are getting nowhere. Any advice please would be much appreciated.

Running_Horse

Wasn't this at the low ebb of the market, when many blocks of flats were being sold to HAs at cheap prices? A few blocks round here spring to mind. Not sure what you can do though.

There was someone on here a few years back, paid full whack at the top of the market only to see nearly all flats sold to a HA. On the rare occasions one did sell, it was for a fraction of what they had paid.

Davesnave

Developers' plans can,and do, change.

When they show a plan of a large development at the site office, it's often not exactly what ends up being built, so many people will have been shown a plan that's inaccurate in some way.

The plan you were shown was the best guess at the time about the make-up of the estate, but Britain was caught up in an economic crisis and few people were buying in 2008/9. This led to companies like Barratt selling off houses cheaply to HAs. This wasn't what they wanted to do, either.

I presume you have no document where Barratt made specific promises about the social make up of the estate or the rights to buy freeholds, and if you don't, there will be no mileage in acting alone against them.

Many people buy houses and later regret doing so. The answer, especially after so many years, is to sell up and move on, not waste time and energy on a fruitless pursuit against a huge company with its own legal department.

davidmcn

Not sure about the freehold sale issue, but what makes you think that you even have the legal basis for a claim based on "miss-selling"? Your contract probably stated that you weren't relying on any warranties other than those in the contract (which I presume didn't say anything about the tenure of the remainder of the estate).

Do you even have evidence of what you were told, and whether it was false at the time?

AdrianC

The most Barratt would have been able to give was an assurance that their intention was to have 17% social housing. As it happened, with the collapse in the property market, the only people they could sell the remaining properties to was a housing association.

As for the freehold - you can't buy "the freehold" to just your flat. It's just not possible. There may have been the opportunity to buy a share of the freehold in the block, but that's very different.

As far as the right to refusal goes, I wonder whether the social housing element would have come into play there.
http://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/right-of-first-refusal/

If the management company is so poor, than have you considered the Right To Manage options?

Chocolate58

Thank you for your responses. We still have the plan given to us by Barratts showing the properties ear-marked for social housing, which showed 17%. Now, having over 50% is a massive difference. The freeholds to our block of 6 flats was apaprently sold for £24,000. Everybody would need to co-operate to purchase as it is correct that we couldn't buy the freehold just for our flat. We've put too much time and energy into this one and would be reluctant to take on a large company, with their own legal department. We tried to go for Right To Manage, to get rid of the management company. Only 2 out of the 6 flats (including us) were on board and we needed 50%. The problem is that 4 out of the 6 flats are buy to let so the owners don't have the personal involvement / experience of the management company that we do as flat owner / dweller.

AdrianC

Chocolate58 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. We still have the plan given to us by Barratts showing the properties ear-marked for social housing, which showed 17%. Now, having over 50% is a massive difference. The freeholds to our block of 6 flats was apaprently sold for £24,000. Everybody would need to co-operate to purchase as it is correct that we couldn't buy the freehold just for our flat. We've put too much time and energy into this one and would be reluctant to take on a large company, with their own legal department. We tried to go for Right To Manage, to get rid of the management company. Only 2 out of the 6 flats (including us) were on board and we needed 50%. The problem is that 4 out of the 6 flats are buy to let so the owners don't have the personal involvement / experience of the management company that we do as flat owner / dweller.

So there y'go, then. You need a majority. You don't have a majority. Work on those other four owners - the management company DO affect them, they just don't see the effect.

Chocolate58

All the owners were in favour of it at a meeting but didn't commit when I needed them to. One of them (potentially our third person) is keen to do it but has to work through legal issues which relate to joint ownership. These should be resolved within 6 months and I plan to try again then. I totally agree that the management company do affect them and there are huge savings to be made...

Alice_Walker

Is the management company Peverel, or whatever name they go by now?

We had the same issue on buying the freehold, I can't recall the reason they used to justify their actions but it was a nonsense. The Leasehold Advisory Service agreed we had a case, but it was clear Barratt would be as difficult as possible, in the end it was not worth the hassle. We also discovered that the company the freehold was sold to was in the same group as Peverel.

I wouldn't trust Barratt one bit. They'll have known of the plan to sell to the HA long before it went through, but you'll never be able to prove it.

Sorry, nothing positive to add, just to let you know that you're not alone in your frustration!

Chocolate58

I appreciate your post. The previous management company were Peverel (now First Port). They were useless and we ended up taking them to a Leaseholders Tribunal, which we won. Trying to prove any of this is very difficult, not to mention costly. They sold the freeholds to a company who won't even answer their emails... They only use one management company, the one we are stuck with! Deeply frustrating...

davidmcn

Chocolate58 wrote: »

We still have the plan given to us by Barratts showing the properties ear-marked for social housing, which showed 17%. Now, having over 50% is a massive difference.

Yes, but they didn't promise you it would be restricted to 17%? That may well have been the accurate figure at the time. No developer can promise who is going to buy properties which haven't yet been bought, or who will own them in the future.