The next property scandal

davidmcn

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

As the contracts etc will be broadly the same between properties, presumably one of the time saving measures employed is having a proper solicitor review it all once and then give some paralegals a pack with the relevant details. It's at this point that details about escalating ground rent get lost

It's even less likely it will get lost, as the lease provisions will be the same across the development so if the "proper" solicitor has done anything it will include a standard report on title, which ought to include an explanation/warning about ground rent.

(or possibly intentionally kept out as the solicitors having decided it looks fine, no doubt not wanting to kick up a fuss less they loose lucrative contracts from developer firms).

Possibly more likely.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Perhaps solicitors will not only be advising their clients not to purchase properties with inbuilt geometric rises, they will refuse to deal with them since inevitably if they recommend against and the purchaser goes ahead against that advice , they will probably still get compensation at some point down the line anyway

No, they'd only be entitled to compensation if the solicitors failed to advise them against it. Anyway, in practice the solicitors would also be advising the lenders against it, so the majority of purchasers couldn't proceed.

Miss_Samantha

Leasehold should be abolished if you ask me.

marksoton

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Leasehold should be abolished if you ask me.

I'd be amazed if anyone disagreed.

moneyistooshorttomention

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Leasehold should be abolished if you ask me.

Certainly true on places one doesnt expect to be leasehold - ie houses.

You know when you buy a house that - of course - it's freehold and honestly don't expect any noticeable difference if you do see the word "leasehold" written there somewhere or other (ie you will assume it's one of those 999 year leases and effectively the same as a standard freehold house - ie no charges, etc or, at worst, the very minimal level you're told at the outset is all it ever will be).

Much simpler to not let builders pull that stunt in the first place and then we all know exactly where we stand.

Northlakes

I mainly inhabit the private parking forum on MSE where we see quite a lot of dodgy legal firms taking advantage of loopholes in the law and exploit the general public's lack of knowledge.
We also see on that forum private parking companies being invited (usually for financial gain) to 'manage' parking in housing complexes usually to the distress of most residents.
This article just seems to show how 'technically dodgy' some of our legal firms are and reionforces again the old adage 'buyer beware'.

Matt_L

As we have been looking recently in the Manchester area we were alarmed to see just how many Houses are for sale with a Leasehold, some with as little as 40 years left.

moneyistooshorttomention

Matt_L wrote: »

As we have been looking recently in the Manchester area we were alarmed to see just how many Houses are for sale with a Leasehold, some with as little as 40 years left.

Which goes to show rather that what buyers can do is "go on strike" and simply refuse to buy these houses.

That won't put pressure on as regards secondhand houses - but it would certainly affect new ones and builders will have to think again re doing this.

beeg0d

marksoton wrote: »

I'd be amazed if anyone disagreed.

Freeholders/Building Firms/Solicitors/Surveyers.

First 2 are quite obvious but for the third and forth...
more leaseholds = more extentions = more legal/survey costs in the future. Maby this is why Solicitors arn`t warning about leasehold houses as much as they should, there not just looking after contracts with builders/EA's but also looking to future work.

Northlakes

Many buy to let mortgages have been on leasehold property. It will interesting to see the reaction of the lenders to these revelations.
Which builders/developers have been involved in this malpractice?

marksoton

beeg0d wrote: »

Freeholders/Building Firms/Solicitors/Surveyers.

First 2 are quite obvious but for the third and forth...
more leaseholds = more extentions = more legal/survey costs in the future. Maby this is why Solicitors arn`t warning about leasehold houses as much as they should, there not just looking after contracts with builders/EA's but also looking to future work.

I meant any buyers, not the obvious winners.