Advice on offer for flat in London

peterbaker

bouicca21 wrote: »

Never thought I’d agree with Crashy, but 3 grand service charge with no gym, no concierge is totally crazy. I’d be going through the accounts very, very carefully. I pay less than half that on a 50 year old building on the other side of the river. Not as hip as Dalton. We don’t have a sinking fund, but even so ...

No sinking fund? That is surely asking for nasty surprises? Is there nothing that has to be renewed on a regular basis e.g. stair carpets every ten years, internal decorations of common parts every five perhaps, replacement of roof every thirty years, gutters and downpipes renewal, external redecoration? Car park resurfacing? Renewal of car park and common parts lighting/emergency lighting? Riser services renewal e.g. wiring. Renewal of fire hazard limitation devices e.g fire/smoke seals on fire doors? And none of that allows anything for more complicated blocks which have lifts and boilers. As a rough guess I would expect to see a simple sinking fund might require an additional annual contribution up to around a third of the routine annual expenditure, so if you aren't contributing, then perhaps it would be an idea to put aside that sort of amount yourself each year for the rainy day.

bouicca21

No sinking fund as there is no provision for one in the leases. And yes, of course I out aside money for major repairs.

peterbaker

bouicca21 wrote: »

No sinking fund as there is no provision for one in the leases. And yes, of course I out aside money for major repairs.

Interesting no provision for a sinking fund, or a "reserve"? What proportion of leaseholders might be in a similar situation do you think? And what proportion of those are sensibly saving specifically like you, for the rainy day that sees a letter drop through the door asking for payment of your share of the cost of e.g. a new roof? Very few I suspect.

D.L

peterbaker wrote: »

Interesting no provision for a sinking fund, or a "reserve"? What proportion of leaseholders might be in a similar situation do you think? And what proportion of those are sensibly saving specifically like you, for the rainy day that sees a letter drop through the door asking for payment of your share of the cost of e.g. a new roof? Very few I suspect.

Unfortunately not unusual. Most ex-council flats don't have a sinking fund.

bouicca21

peterbaker wrote: »

Interesting no provision for a sinking fund, or a "reserve"? What proportion of leaseholders might be in a similar situation do you think? And what proportion of those are sensibly saving specifically like you, for the rainy day that sees a letter drop through the door asking for payment of your share of the cost of e.g. a new roof? Very few I suspect.

Given that a straw poll of my fellow leaseholders on buying the freehold showed considerable unwillingness to fork out the necessary dosh, I suspect you are right. Fortunately the roof, although 50 years old, is in good nick. The building isn’t pretty but I think it’s pretty solidly built.

peterbaker

D.L wrote: »

Unfortunately not unusual. Most ex-council flats don't have a sinking fund.

Yes, I was thinking of that one first - who'd want to place themselves at the mercy of the whims of a local authority or housing association, especially one where local authority control bounces around between different political parties?

Is it just my incorrect feling, or did we not used to hear of more horror stories of sudden one-off four and five figure service charge surcharges imposed on ex-local authority flats than we do now?

Have more protections (against sudden unexpected large one-off surcharges) for leaseholders of that type been brought into law?

Crashy_Time

Good question.

scd3scd4

My daughters flat 6 months ago in east London was 300k.


The SC is about £1200 a year. No real facilities others than some gardens. They do have a concierge with cameras in another block. They are a group of 3.