Please Read if you are on Shared Ownership Scheme or a Leaseholder or Pay Service Charges

jimbog

simondv wrote: »

There are some smart Alecs on here who think they know all about leasehold, and people were foolish to fall into carefully set traps. They do not, and neither do I know all about leasehold law

That's why I used my own solicitor. You MUST use your own in the future and not theirs Simon

MobileSaver

simondv wrote: »

The solicitors failed to warn buyers of the onerous terms in their lease so they were not acting in the interests of buyers, but in the interests of the developers and freeholders.

Solicitors have a legal obligation to act in their client's best interests. If you have proof that a solicitor did not then you can take action and claim damages or are you just ranting and have no proof?

Masomnia

I think it's part of wider British thing about home ownership and my generation being desperate to get on the property ladder, and the harder it gets to do so the more people want it. I worry it leads people to get into things they don't understand without fully thinking it through and taking proper advice.

I avoided shared ownership like the plague but I'm sure it works for some people, and I wouldn't judge.

Leasehold law is obviously archaic. I bought a leasehold flat 6 months ago, the ground rent is £10 and the lease has over 900 years left on it so I wasn't concerned from that point of view. You need to know what you're getting into though.

Rock-on

Cornucopia
Shared ownership IS leasehold, I suggest you read some of the Housing Association blurb but unfortunately this is definitely NOT made clear on purchase. Even some of their information is mis-leading to say the least.
Leases are assigned which means on a second buyer place, the first buyer signs the lease and it's passed onto the second and subsequent buyers
We cannot extend our leases unless we own 100%
We cannot sub let unless we own 100% even when we cannot live in the place due to issues beyond our control which I have no intention of going into on this post
We cannot challenge ANY terms of leases especially service and management fees through the Tribunal. Have you any idea of the cost of such an action? LVT has been replaced for your information by a First Tier tribunal which is even more useless.
Shared ownership LOSES value, drastically as I found out when I tried to sell
Buyers CANNOT get mortgages, lenders simply will not lend on shared ownership anywhere other that possibly London.
We cannot apply for RTM because these are shared ownership places
The forfeiture clause more often than not is definitely NOT raised during the buying process. Many leaseholders had no idea about that until AFTER completion.
Read the papers there have been several forfeitures so yes it does happen and yes we are all threatened with this even for a small debt.
As for not understanding leasehold, sorry but yes I do understand leasehold. What happens is that buyers are simply not given full details of leases as many solicitors have no idea how to interpret these documents. I suggest you read a lease and then come back and tell us that it is in plain English and fully understandable. It isn't.
You may be quite happy with your fully owned, no mortgage leasehold property. There are several thousands if not millions of us who have been duped and whether you like it or not, we are NOT stupid. Suggest suing our solicitors why don't you? .Again, have you any idea of the cost? What happens when a solicitor goes out of business so you cannot sue them?
Do you seriously think any of us would have signed up to this situation if we had known all the facts, been able to find all the facts, had the leases explained to us on purchase even after repeatedly asking questions? No, we certainly wouldn't.
As you seem to have your own ideas of what you believe rather than actually finding out facts, I cannot be bothered to continue confirming everything that other leaseholders have posted which you quite obviously think is wrong.

csgohan4

Rock-on wrote: »

Cornucopia
Shared ownership IS leasehold, I suggest you read some of the Housing Association blurb but unfortunately this is definitely NOT made clear on purchase. Even some of their information is mis-leading to say the least.

If you don't understand your lease, that is what you paid your solicitor/Conveyancer to explain to you


SO and most leaseholds has lots of disadvantages, it is you that must apply due diligence before you bought. I think it's a SCAM imo and I am not a big fan of it.


Unfortunately some naïve people think it's a step on the property ladder, cheaper than renting and all they see is £££ without looking at the full ramifications, some of which you have covered

Slithery

Rock-on wrote: »

Do you seriously think any of us would have signed up to this situation if we had known all the facts, been able to find all the facts, had the leases explained to us on purchase even after repeatedly asking questions? No, we certainly wouldn't.

So what you're saying is you didn't do enough research. The majority of people who purchase one know exactly what a leasehold is.

Cornucopia

Rock-on wrote: »

Shared ownership IS leasehold...

I had a look and it seems (certainly in my area) that there are examples of both (though the traditional Housing Association SO schemes all seem to be Leases).

So are the concerns solely about Shared Ownership Lease Houses schemes, because that is not the same as all Leases?

I suggest you read some of the Housing Association blurb but unfortunately this is definitely NOT made clear on purchase.

I read some supporting material from Moat Housing and it mentions a Lease in the first couple of paragraphs.

Moat Homes - Buying Shared Ownership

Even some of their information is mis-leading to say the least.
Leases are assigned which means on a second buyer place, the first buyer signs the lease and it's passed onto the second and subsequent buyers

That is invariably how it works.

We cannot extend our leases unless we own 100%
We cannot sub let unless we own 100% even when we cannot live in the place due to issues beyond our control which I have no intention of going into on this post
We cannot challenge ANY terms of leases especially service and management fees through the Tribunal. Have you any idea of the cost of such an action?

I think that if my independent solicitor had not pointed out those limitations before purchase I would be very disappointed.

Shared ownership LOSES value, drastically as I found out when I tried to sell
Buyers CANNOT get mortgages, lenders simply will not lend on shared ownership anywhere other that possibly London.
We cannot apply for RTM because these are shared ownership places

I've never had a SO property, as I can't really see the point.

The forfeiture clause more often than not is definitely NOT raised during the buying process. Many leaseholders had no idea about that until AFTER completion.
Read the papers there have been several forfeitures so yes it does happen and yes we are all threatened with this even for a small debt.

The risk of forfeiture is implicit in a long lease, and I think that most buyers understand it at least from the perspective of "what happens when the Lease reaches 0 years". I had a look for "examples of lease forfeiture" and found nothing, but by all means post examples as I would be genuinely interested to understand the circumstances. I accept that it is something that people are threatened with.

... many solicitors have no idea how to interpret these documents. I suggest you read a lease and then come back and tell us that it is in plain English and fully understandable. It isn't.

I have read the Leases of leasehold properties I have bought. They are legal documents, but by no means unintelligible. In a couple of cases I have had more detailed discussion with my Solicitor about the meaning or consequences of particular clauses - that is what they (solicitors) are there for.

Based on my experience, I don't accept that Leases are generally unintelligible, and would need to see examples of those that allegedly are. Freehold properties also often come with various covenants - the principle of having responsibilities attached to property occupancy is not in itself unreasonable.

You may be quite happy with your fully owned, no mortgage leasehold property.

I am. Though I would be silly not to prefer SoF or Commonhold over the present Lease.

There are several thousands if not millions of us who have been duped and whether you like it or not, we are NOT stupid. Suggest suing our solicitors why don't you? .Again, have you any idea of the cost? What happens when a solicitor goes out of business so you cannot sue them?

I'm not sure what you are seeking, here. No Government is going to be able to legislate for home owners never to lose money, or for their homes always to be saleable. Some more onerous clauses could be outlawed, but this is unlikely to fix all the issues you say you have. I think you also risk the possibility that Government will "fix" Leasehold overall, but your specific SO issues may fly under the radar of what they are doing.

Do you seriously think any of us would have signed up to this situation if we had known all the facts, been able to find all the facts, had the leases explained to us on purchase even after repeatedly asking questions? No, we certainly wouldn't.

As you seem to have your own ideas of what you believe rather than actually finding out facts, I cannot be bothered to continue confirming everything that other leaseholders have posted which you quite obviously think is wrong.

The issue I have is what other posters have termed your "scatter-gun" approach. If your issues are primarily about SO, then they are not about all Leases.

jimbog

Rock-on wrote: »

Do you seriously think any of us would have signed up to this situation if we had known all the facts, been able to find all the facts, had the leases explained to us on purchase even after repeatedly asking questions? No, we certainly wouldn't.

Then why did you?

Rock-on

For your information I DID do research, I DID ask questions but not all solicitors are that savvy on leases. The estate agent sold the place as 'pay for your percentage the pay rent on the remaining percentage and that's all you pay.' No it isn't and many of the charges made are NOT in the lease.

I am out of time for making claims unfortunately because all this didn't come fully to light until I wanted to sell so if you think we knew what we were getting into, think again, try it yourself see just how buyers are mis-sold and totally mis-led even after doing their own research. The whole thing is a con.

Rock-on

Because even after asking questions the solicitor involved never mentioned some of the terms and I never saw a copy of the lease as it was assigned, exactly the same as it is in most shared ownership places when a second buyer is involved.

You can't query something you don't know about and when the full facts are disclosed after completion there is absolutely nothing you can do especially when the solicitor who dealt with it goes bust.

I did as much as I could to make sure I was making the right decision but if you take a look at NLC Facebook page you will very quickly work out there are thousands of us in exactly the same situation.