Freehold....BBC this morning

getmore4less

steampowered wrote: »

I didn't change anything. I simply copied and pasted the clause from the lease which is quoted in the Supreme Court's decision.

but that is not the same clause used for the rising cost example you used.

The one* you copied from the SC link was a 3y rising, the one used in the example is a different one and is 1year rising.

go back and read your post and your links.


* there are loads of example in the SC ruling you probably just picked the wrong one to C&P.

charlotte_rose

old story. little sympathy as freehold/leasehold is the most basic of basic enquiries or many its not

Marvel1

No doubt they go and buy only seeing brand new build and nothing else.

May not like my mid terrace 1920 house, but at least there is no lease.

dannyjebb

Some harsh comments on here, I have heard of many people who used reputable independent solicitors who didn't warn them of the pitfalls of doubling causes in leashold contracts....How is that the buyers fault? You get a solicitor to look after your interests, hopefully with the recent publicity people will start to pull out of leasehold newbuilds. We were in the process of buying a leasehold new build, fortunately I am a sucker for OTT research, luckily it paid off this time

dannyjebb

tizerbelle wrote: »

But don't forget that leasehold properties are nothing new and not automatically something to be scared of or something that would/should affect the house price.

My house was granted a 999 year lease in 1868. There is no clause to allow the freeholder to charge me for anything other than ground rent and the ground rent is fixed at £1.14 per year for the term of the lease. My house is of no less value in this street than others that have bought their freehold.

From research I have done this shambolic practice started around 2007

[Deleted User]

This morning Sadiq Jared communitites minister is quoted as intending to do somenthing about these lease houses for those using the help to buy scheme ie first timers but no mention of helping those already caught in the trap or purchasing second / third homes.

I think the general rule of thumb is avoid Leasehold houses and the builders will have to do something when houses arent shifting.

There is no need for Leasehold houses IMO but as everything these days if someone can screw a penny out of you they'll screw a pound.

Grenage

The most worrying aspect of this is the thought that someone is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a house, but not read up on the basics.

[Deleted User]

Most people have a cursory knowledge of what a Freehold / Leasehold is and for me as soon as I hear Leasehold House I'd very suspicious as Leaseholds are traditionally Flats.

Having said that if you are paying hundreds / thousands for professional legal advice I would expect the ' experts' to explain everything so I knew what i was taking on.

Some of the flowery language in these leases is such that is is either ambigous or totally banboozling to the layman. If I chose to ignore or not understand the legalities of what i was taking on having had it explained to me then I'd be a schmuck.

davidmcn

BBH123 wrote: »

There is no need for Leasehold houses IMO

There's no need for leasehold flats either, but the English seem to be prepared to put up with those.

david1951

There are lot's of vulnerable people out there and the law in this area clearly needs changing to protect them, and also taxpayers as they are the ones who ultimately pick up the bill.

Having said that, it does annoy me when some people are "shocked" when they realise the law doesn't cover them for being annoyingly stupid.