Builder has bought the freehold to my property

moneyistooshorttomention

Without going back and checking that legal questionnaire vendors have to fill in - I have a feeling there is something there to the effect of vendors being supposed to mention anything they could reasonably be expected to know of. Anyway - the builder has probably slapped in a request for planning approval for the garden already - or will darn soon do so - and it will come up in searches.

Somehow or other - I have a feeling any poor person that bought this place now would darn soon find out (whether from the shop-owner or other flat owners) that OP had known about it at the time she was pleading not to have known about it.:cool:

Add that she only moved in in June and there is only one good reason for selling a place on again literally within months in a buyers eyes - that being "I've just had a lottery (or equivalent) win - so I can now get what I really wanted in the first place".

Sassaliah

I'm with moneyistooshorttomention. If I were to sell I'll have to say that I know the building and gardens have been sold.

Plus I only moved in June and am really happy in my flat and in the village and unfortunately can't afford another property in the area.

You've all come up with some valid points and things to think about so thank you for your help.

moneyistooshorttomention

anselld wrote: »

The Builder cannot "up the ground rent".

The ground rent can be upped.

I've just had - yet another - spam email through to me this morning from Net House Prices Ltd (www.nethouseprices.com) asking people to sell their "ground rents" they can charge onto them. Their wording being "We buy any ground rents, small or large for cash".

As I understand it - these firms buy up the ability to charge ground rents - and then whack them up from minimal level to rather more expensive.

anselld

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The ground rent can be upped.

As I understand it - these firms buy up the ability to charge ground rents - and then whack them up from minimal level to rather more expensive.

It can only be upped if there is a clause in the Lease allowing this. Most Leases are either fixed or increase against a defined schedule.

Ground rents can be bought and sold yes, but what is actually being traded is the "Freehold Reversion" and the opportunity to make money is in lease renewals and to an extent in admin fees for sale assignments, etc.

As ever with Leasehold, what matters is what is written in the Lease so at the moment we are both guessing!

always_sunny

anselld wrote: »

It can only be upped if there is a clause in the Lease allowing this. Most Leases are either fixed or increase against a defined schedule.

Ground rents can be bought and sold yes, but what is actually being traded is the "Freehold Reversion" and the opportunity to make money is in lease renewals and to an extent in admin fees for sale assignments, etc.

As ever with Leasehold, what matters is what is written in the Lease so at the moment we are both guessing!

Out of curiosity though, assuming the leaseholder renew/extend through statutory route, there's no much that can be added in there?

anselld

always_sunny wrote: »

Out of curiosity though, assuming the leaseholder renew/extend through statutory route, there's no much that can be added in there?

In that case the Freeholder would be adequately compensated through the renewal premium. The statutory process is designed to offer a fair price to both parties ( albeit that the Lease holder picks up the tab for both sets of fees).

Hoploz

I understood the main issue to be the concern that the character of the site could change and the OP would lose the pleasant surroundings and be overlooked by a new block of flats.

Ground rents are not going to be changed unless the lease allows it and that is v unlikely.

My first thought was that the whole building could be redeveloped ...

moneyistooshorttomention

Actually - re the being potentially overlooked by a block of flats - there are planning considerations that would mean any planning application within a certain number of metres would be against regulations and due to be turned down. Can't remember the number of metres - though I've got it carefully saved somewhere just-in-case of need. I seem to recall it was more from their pov (rather than the existing householder) that they were deemed to have to have a back garden of at least a certain (pretty decent) width between them and any wall in between the two sites.

I think this depends a bit on what part of the country one is in:
a. In more heavily built-up areas that number of metres is likely to be somewhat smaller.
b. In less built-up areas there may be the problem of "not what you know but who you know" undue influence being brought to bear on councillors - and those councillors "forgetting themselves" sufficiently to go against fairness/commonsense and push through something that shouldnt be allowed.

Doesnt sound like OP is in a built-up area - so, hopefully, she isn't in a "not what you know but who you know" corrupt area.