Would you buy a converted flat if you had a choice?

Bun

Whilst the noise problem is a high consideration, both of the last flats I've bought have been one house split into two, with both being leashehold - legally this is much easier. It is also the only way to get a reasonable size garden round here if you can't afford a house. I am however wary as our upstairs flat is for sale and whilst it is clear from the contents of the garden that we have a child, I am a bit worried that the new arrival due in February (whatever the colour of it's cry) will push limits a bit.

However, our garden is enclosed and we have a seperate entrance - I would never share communal areas or an entrance again.

Richard_Webster

Another problem with conversions is that the conveyancing on their original sale can easily go wrong. Basically the builder is only interested in getting his money from the sale of the flats and finds the legal stuff boring. So his solicitor has a job getting sensible instructions out of him and ends up doing the leases in a rush.

The plans can be wrong because builder supplies copies of his original planning permission drawings and then makes internal layout changes without telling his solicitor.

There was one case I've had where a lease was drawn up of the ground floor flat which simply had a plan copied from the freehold Land Registry plan showing the whole of the ground floor but unfortunately the front part was still a shop! Builder forget to tell his solicitor that! I eventually acted for someone who then wanted to buy the front part as a flat years later after it had ceased to be a shop. They had to get the lease of the main ground floor flat altered to exclude the front part so we could buy it!

I'm just sorting out the mess caused by a a solicitor using a precedent for a flat lease of a first floor of a house converted into two for a London property with a second floor and basement flat as well. So my client was selling the first floor and the second floor flat owners didn't have any right to use the stairs to get to their flat, because the whole of the first floor was included in my client's lease!

smousie

I currently live in a house that's been converted into two flats (I have the upstairs flat). The noise is terrible, especially because the property was designed as one house so there isn't adequate soundproofing in the floor between the two flats. The property is too small to be managed by a management company, so any issues have to be sorted out personally between the two flat-owners, which can lead to disagreements. (For example, the roof gutter was full of leaves so the downstairs neighbours demanded we should have it cleaned out as the water was dripping on their conservatory. I asked them for half of the money, and they refused because they said the gutter was attached to the upstairs flat, and was therefore not on their property.)

We also have disagreements over the garden (legally it's shared, but as the downstairs flat has a conservatory that opens onto the garden they keep trying to claim it for their own use, and they complain if we sit on the seats they have put outside, or if we stomp around on "their" lawn.) The shared hall is a problem too - we want modern decoration, while they want paisley carpets, anaglypta wallpaper, and hunting prints hung on the walls (as you might have guessed by their taste in furnishings, the neighbours are elderly.)

Our property is the only one in the street to be divided into flats, and most people think it's just one house, so people can't find us and our deliveries get lost, if there are any freebies or newspapers or leaflets etc we only get one set which is invariably posted in the letterbox of the downstairs people, etc. We require two parking spaces (one for each flat) and there's only one space per house, so we argue about that too. Ground rent and freehold etc are a nightmare to sort out.

I imagine it's much easier if you have reasonable neighbours whom you get on with, but they could sell up at any time and if the new neighbours are unpleasant then that's when the hassle begins!

EdInvestor

Period property such as converted flats, tends to increase in value because there is a limited supply.

New-build flats, like new cars, decrease in value the minute you buy them because they are no longer new.

The other issues may apply to both: but there are plenty of converted flats who don't have such issues. As for managing agents, anyone who thinks they are a plus point can't have much experience of living in flats of any kind.;)

EdInvestor

smousie wrote: »

Ground rent and freehold etc are a nightmare to sort out.

And that is probably where your problem lies.If they are sorted out, you shouldn't be having these arguments.That is what the lease is for - to lay down clear rules to resolve differences on these types of issues.

Who owns the freehold of the property?

CB1979_2

a choice between new build flats or period conversion?

period conversion all day long, if the finish is of equal quality ie kitchen, bathroom etc, then period conversion, generally better built, bigger rooms, high ceilings, ie no boxey feeling.

Woby_Tide

period conversions all teh way too, bigger rooms, more space, more character (i.e. not identikit to the flat next door, and the one next to that, and teh one next to that). Whilst there are always going to be duff conversions out there, there's an equal number of badly built newbuilds with pokey rooms and noise issues.

We had a fantastic split level loft conversion in an old converted hotel with about 9 flats. Each one (of those we saw whilst we lived there) all were different and had their own characters and features. The communal areas spacious enough to actually pass the time of day with neighbours if you wanted(rather than just trying to figure out how to actually get past someone in the small space).

motch

I have a 2 bed converted maisonette victorian property. Has superb soundproofing, 14' by 12' for most rooms, high ceilings and a good neighbour upstairs. Own independent access which i think is a major plus.
I'm a postie and half of the flats I go to have posters up ranting to each other about something or the other.

Infidel

macaque wrote: »

In my view, flats converted from old houses are (for the most part) a con. The communal areas never look like they were intended to serve multiple dwellings and things like lifts are a complete non starter. Noise transmission through the floors and walls is often dreaful. The number of dwellings within the buildings are usually insufficient to justify an independent management company. As a result, flat owners often end up at logger heads with each other. The buildings are often Victorian houses riddled with problems like dry rot and subsidence. If one party fails to pay their insurance, large maintenance bills turn into intractible problems. Liability for shared amenities can be difficult to tie down because of the unusual shapes of converted properties. If the owner of the garden fails to maintain it, everyone else suffers.

I would be interested to know what other people's views are on this subject.

Yeah, they are basically little more than 1st year student accommodation type places with, as you implied, thin walls and floors meaning noise noise noise, even when people aren't that noisy.

So when they are........................ :eek::eek::eek:

jamesd

When it comes to conversions, new house conversions are much improved. I looked at one being converted near me and the person doing the work stripped the floorboards, installed mineral wool between the joists and then as a floor used high density fiberboard on a rubber base that was laid against the joists.

Walls were done with isolated layers, with metal offsets to do the isolating, and sound absorbing material between. I don't think any of the original internal walls remained.