Purchasing Ex-Local Authority in London & CPO

Cakeguts

I am a bit worried about your "value for money" statement. This statement in our household is a bit of a joke in property buying.



There is no such thing as "value for money." If something seems cheap for what it is that is because there is something seriously wrong with it. What is wrong with it can be anything but if something is seems cheap for the surrounding area that is because there is a serious problem with it. You have to find out what that is.

bouicca21

Ex LA flats are always cheap for the area.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Erkahj wrote: »

I'd hate to be forced to move on when I'm not ready yet and have to shell out on stamp duty etc etc on a property which is just a replacement.

You wouldn't. IF the estate were to undergo regeneration then there would be extensive consultation with all the residents.

Worse case scenario would be that the CPO was awarded and your property would be purchased by the LA. However, on the development I worked on, we carried out independent valuations and encouraged the leaseholders to do the same (the cost of which was met by us). We offered free, independent financial advice (an outside company, not linked to the Council, paid for by us). There was extensive negotiations. In one case, where we couldn't agree, we paid for RICS arbitration to make the final decision (all costs met by us). We also paid an additional 10% homeloss for resident leaseholders plus all their ongoing moving costs, such as stamp duty, legal and conveyancing fees, fees for transferring mortgages, removals fees....no one ended up out of pocket.

In some cases, we were also able to get a Government grant so that the leaseholder could move right out of the area. A couple of families moved from a tower block on a sink estate to a house in Suffolk.

martindow

From a google search the figures quoted by the OP seem to come from here


https://barcode1966.com/2016/09/23/why-has-the-threat-of-compulsory-purchase-orders-become-one-of-the-biggest-fears-of-ex-local-authority-leaseholders-in-london/


The writer of this article is basing his information on this (with no sources quoted)



Below are some very rough figures I have been given (I have not been able to check the validity of all of them all. I have heard the same figures time and time again however so they will be pretty accurate)


Repeating information does not necessarily make it accurate and it all sounds like something heard from a man in a pub. Unless there is a more authoritative source I would take this with a pinch of salt.



Like an earlier poster I thought it could be a Daily Mail article which is why I googled it.

Owain_Moneysaver

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

In some cases, we were also able to get a Government grant so that the leaseholder could move right out of the area. A couple of families moved from a tower block on a sink estate to a house in Suffolk.

They could probably have afforded that even without a grant.

It's not so good though if you need to remain in the area for work etc.

I don't think the problem is limited to worst/sink estates. Councils know that if they can replace council housing with private or mixed developments they can get a nice wodge of cash and increase their council tax revenues.

AlexMac

Just to add that it seems your prospective flat's in Lambeth brorough? If so, that's good, as my experience of owning what sounds like two similar 2-bedroom flats (in low rise blocks of 12; with brick construction, tiled roofs and no lifts ; so no problems of paying to maintain lifts, remove cladding or errect extravagant tower block scaffolding...) has been very positive.

Lambeth have been an exemplary freeholder; reasonable service charges averaging £600-700 p.a., one-off contibutions per flat of £4-5k every 8-10 years for major works such as window replacements or communal decor and improvements (an average of £1k p.a; about what you'd expect to insure, clean and maintain your own freehold) and exemplary communications.

A far cry from the horror stories of other LA leasehold purcgasers.

Comms69

Erkahj wrote: »

Hey Hoploz,

The horror stories are that 'market value' isn't really 'market value' and that you don't really have any power to negotiate.

An excerpt from one article

'Hendon (worth £347,000), opening offer £130,000, final offer £214,000
Heygate (worth £355,000), opening offer £114,000, final offer £164,000
Colville (worth £270,000), opening offer £120,000, final offer £150,000
Woodberry (worth £330,000), opening offer £130,000, final offer £158,000
Data obtained by campaigners at the Aylesbury estate under the Freedom of Information Act found Southwark council paid £147,500 for a four-bedroom, 97 sq m maisonette. The average house price in London at the time had just had hit £400,000.

At the West Hendon estate in Barnet, some leaseholders were offered just £90,000 for a one-bed flat and £130,000 for a two-bed maisonette when the council applied for the first in a series of compulsory purchase orders.'

I've seen similar figures on a number of articles.

Any chance of a link or are we to just accept that some rag somewhere has hired a monkey to type some nonsense?

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

They could probably have afforded that even without a grant.

No, they couldn't. That's why they got the grant.