Leaseholds banned on new build homes

[Deleted User]

economic wrote: »

Why only 98% agree? It is fully the buyers own fault for being stupid. I think it just shows how people are easily willing to sign for something when they don't know what they are really getting.

I guess you can not help stupidity.

What a nasty person you are.


If you have read the stories of abject misery these greedy developers / Freeholders / Managing agents have caused you would have some understanding of the extent of the problem. We are not just talking about people not reading leases fully we are talking about the most devious manipulative methods of scamming people and using them a cash cow once they have signed the Lease. They can't possibly know that the developers plan to sell the Freeholds on to unscrupulous invisible off shore companies whose only motivation for buying is to screw peoplee to the wall.


Where else can you be demanded of the price of a family car on demand at any time and have the potential to lose your home if you cannot pay.


It is long overdue that this whole sordid area is addressed unless of course you happen to be a greedy developer and lets hope Jeff Fairburn chokes on his £130 MILLION bonus.

economic

BBH123 wrote: »

What a nasty person you are.


If you have read the stories of abject misery these greedy developers / Freeholders / Managing agents have caused you would have some understanding of the extent of the problem. We are not just talking about people not reading leases fully we are talking about the most devious manipulative methods of scamming people and using them a cash cow once they have signed the Lease. They can't possibly know that the developers plan to sell the Freeholds on to unscrupulous invisible off shore companies whose only motivation for buying is to screw peoplee to the wall.

If this were all true then surely the buyers have a strong case and they would be able to sue by now and win?

I am not a nasty person, i am realistic.

If someone who buys something for a large amount of money, surely they would make sure they understood full well what they are getting themselves into? Sure if they do not understand leases then surely they would find a competent solicitor and one who is not conflicted?? That is common sense surely?

Perhaps the buyers, since using helptobuy, only have to put down 5% and usually these people are desperate so they just go ahead and turn a blind eye or don't think.

If this is not human stupidity i dont know what is.

Graham_Devon

economic wrote: »

If this were all true then surely the buyers have a strong case and they would be able to sue by now and win?

I am not a nasty person, i am realistic.

If someone who buys something for a large amount of money, surely they would make sure they understood full well what they are getting themselves into? Sure if they do not understand leases then surely they would find a competent solicitor and one who is not conflicted?? That is common sense surely?

Perhaps the buyers, since using helptobuy, only have to put down 5% and usually these people are desperate so they just go ahead and turn a blind eye or don't think.

If this is not human stupidity i dont know what is.

As has always been thus.

Not everyone is a lawyer or solicitor. Reading a lease without a background in law or at least an understanding is pretty useless.

Again, that's why we pay others to do that for us.

Perhaps you think all those who bought endowment mortgages were also stupid?

or perhaps all those who bought German cars based on efficiences were stupid because they didn't test them themselves and only read the details based on regulated tests? Afterall, if they had invested in all the equipment to test this before purchase, they wouldn't have found themselves sold a lie.

You may not be a nasty person. But you are either being difficult or simply obtuse to carry on down the path of making out it's the buyer that's at fault here.

economic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As has always been thus.

Not everyone is a lawyer or solicitor. Reading a lease without a background in law or at least an understanding is pretty useless.

Again, that's why we pay others to do that for us.

Perhaps you think all those who bought endowment mortgages were also stupid?

or perhaps all those who bought German cars based on efficiences were stupid because they didn't test them themselves and only read the details based on regulated tests? Afterall, if they had invested in all the equipment to test this before purchase, they wouldn't have found themselves sold a lie.

You may not be a nasty person. But you are either being difficult or simply obtuse to carry on down the path of making out it's the buyer that's at fault here.

Answer me this:

If you were to buy a new build and the developer wants you to use their solicitor to buy, would it not be a sensible, common sense thing to demand your own INDEPENDENT solicitor?

economic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Perhaps you think all those who bought endowment mortgages were also stupid?

or perhaps all those who bought German cars based on efficiences were stupid because they didn't test them themselves and only read the details based on regulated tests? Afterall, if they had invested in all the equipment to test this before purchase, they wouldn't have found themselves sold a lie.

You may not be a nasty person. But you are either being difficult or simply obtuse to carry on down the path of making out it's the buyer that's at fault here.

People make stupid mistakes all the time. I know i have. Its not me being nasty. Its just the way humans are. Some are stupider then others.

Now even if they were stupid enough to use a developer solicitor. then surely they can just sue the solicitor of not informing them clearly (if indeed that really was the case) about the full nature of the property?

EDIT: it probably was not the solicitors fault (i think). When i bought my leasehold property few years back all i was given was a pack stating the terms, how much i have to pay, how much GR will increase, what i actually own etc etc.

Perhaps the real fault lies with no proper valuation done on the property. If the proper full valuation were done, any competent surveyor would have clearly stated it would cost x amount to buy the freehold (fair value, not some random small number the developer told the buyer over the phone lol) etc. Or at least tell the buyer he is being ripped off or paying a price as if the property were a freehold (and thus paying a premium).

IMO if the buyer didn't bother to get a proper survey done, they are asking for trouble.

SuperHan

How does this practically work though? I live in a leasehold flat - we have a lot of communal areas, and I pay a service charge under my lease for the maintenance of the communal area.

Our ground rent is minimal with no scope for increase.

If I had bought the freehold to my property, 1) wouldn't 5 other people own the same bit of land that I own, and 2) how would there be any agreement in place to ensure that each apartment contributed to the maintenance of the building.

I expect I'm oversimplifying this a bit, but I am particularly interested in how it would affect me buying another new build flat in future.

Graham_Devon

economic wrote: »

Answer me this:

If you were to buy a new build and the developer wants you to use their solicitor to buy, would it not be a sensible, common sense thing to demand your own INDEPENDENT solicitor?

You can demand to see whoever you like, not going to get you anywhere and someone will happily follow you and buy the house.

Many people HAVE avoided help to buy as there are enough stories out there, but similarly, others see it as the only way they will be able to afford a house in the area they need to reside in rather than renting for a few more years.

Sometimes it's a rock and a hard place scenario and a government backed scheme would appear to most, regardless of reality, to offer a higher level of protection.

economic

SuperHan wrote: »

How does this practically work though? I live in a leasehold flat - we have a lot of communal areas, and I pay a service charge under my lease for the maintenance of the communal area.

Our ground rent is minimal with no scope for increase.

If I had bought the freehold to my property, 1) wouldn't 5 other people own the same bit of land that I own, and 2) how would there be any agreement in place to ensure that each apartment contributed to the maintenance of the building.

I expect I'm oversimplifying this a bit, but I am particularly interested in how it would affect me buying another new build flat in future.

you own a flat. you would not buy the freehold. you would buy a share in the freehold. you would still own a lease which would state how the communal areas are looked after.

didn't your solicitor explain this to you? or if you forgotten it should at least be in the pack they put together and sent to you.

Graham_Devon

SuperHan wrote: »

How does this practically work though? I live in a leasehold flat - we have a lot of communal areas, and I pay a service charge under my lease for the maintenance of the communal area.

Our ground rent is minimal with no scope for increase.

If I had bought the freehold to my property, 1) wouldn't 5 other people own the same bit of land that I own, and 2) how would there be any agreement in place to ensure that each apartment contributed to the maintenance of the building.

I expect I'm oversimplifying this a bit, but I am particularly interested in how it would affect me buying another new build flat in future.

Don't think this applies to flats, where leaseholds generally do work and are the best solution we have.

This seems to apply to houses, where there is really no need in most cases for them to be leasehold. Only reason is it allows for greater profits to the detriment of the buyer.

economic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can demand to see whoever you like, not going to get you anywhere and someone will happily follow you and buy the house.

Many people HAVE avoided help to buy as there are enough stories out there, but similarly, others see it as the only way they will be able to afford a house in the area they need to reside in rather than renting for a few more years.

Sometimes it's a rock and a hard place scenario and a government backed scheme would appear to most, regardless of reality, to offer a higher level of protection.

Its the people who are desperate who are usually the ones who dont know how to think before buying (and so for e.g. dont think twice about using a developer solicitor). Im not being rude but some people are not as smart as others.

What has effectively happened in these government scheme is there has been a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the developers, because the buyer has purchased it at a price premium to what a new build would cost.

This is because the buyer only stumps up 5% and the rest is a loan/ equity loan. The equity loan is a loan from the taxpayer which the taxpayer losses money on for the first 5/6 years.