Leasehold reform proposals could save homeowners £1,000s - MSE News

Socajam

This have been going on for years.
People need to take responsibility for their actions which is called do your own research before buying a property
People are so brainwashed into thinking that I must get on the property ladder before x or y, that they neglect the most import things that are needed to be done.
A simple search on "leasehold" v "freehold" for a house would put one straight.
Who in their right might buys a new build or not would want to buy a leasehold house, unless it s the ridiculous notion : "that's is their dream house".
The only "dream house" available is six feet under the ground.

fuzed

unless your a leasholder you'll not know the pain of not owning or having control of your finances, these issues are just the tip of the iceberg, unregulated management agents, unregulated freehold agents, all using leaseholders as personal piggy banks.

I pay £180 ground rent, late fees - £120 last year and that was my own fault, but the sheer amount they charge as late fees is disgusting, and no real way deal with it, as no one cares, the government is doing !!!!!! all about it.

Management agents, always increasing fees to supposedly manage the properties, but getting control is another issue. This needs to change to make it fair on those stuck in these properties.

chris_leaseholder_missold

Socajam, please tell me how you buy a new build house if all of them are leasehold, you ask to buy the freehold but get told you have to wait by law two years and then the developer sells the freehold WITHOUT telling you to an investor within 2-3 months of moving in.

That's what happened to me and thousands of others. A very clever way of scamming people. Tell them they have to wait 2 years and as you sit there in your new place the developers sell the freeholds on within months and then send a letter saying its gone and you have to contact the investor now if you want to buy it back! This is a scandal! Everyone who this happened to says the same thing, they were waiting to get it for the low cost the developer stated and then find out it has gone and in my case tripled in price over night. I'm only involved in the scandal because of this reason.

I've since learnt of other leasehold shock horrors and then there is the cladding scandal. The whole system stinks and needs sorting out. Fix from the source and that's at the developers who created these toxic leases. Time for the government to get tough and help us and not the greedy unethical builders!

simondv

"I'm not sure why somebody who knew it was a lease and had to pay a ground rent should benefit by thousands of pounds"

I'm not sure why a remote ground rent investor who only paid 1% or 2% for the freehold interest and has added no value, cares nothing for the building or people within it other than getting fees from it, should get a disproportionate windfall and benefit from the leaseholder's efforts. Leasehold properties with long leases are not much cheaper than freehold ones so the leaseholder has gained nothing, and pays ground rents and fees during the term. The freeholder has already had more than adequate "compensation" despite having done nothing for it.

james_tate

The recommendations in the report are incredibly underwhelming.
However, my real concern is that the document repeatedly defends the freeholders’ human right to own and profit from someone else’s property via the leasehold system, which is absolutely crushing.
Rather than recognise leasehold as an exploitative feudal anachronism, the Law Commission seems intent to defend the principles of the system, rejecting many options for reform that would make enfranchisement genuinely cheaper, simpler and fairer.
For example, the option to calculate the cost of enfranchisement by a simple multiplication of the current ground rent was dismissed by the Law Commission as it could contravene human rights legislation

[Deleted User]

worzel_gummidge wrote: »

It is a scandal that 23% of leaseholders were not told the difference between leasehold and freehold and the solicitors who didn't advise this for leasehold houses should be made to buy the freeholds. These solicitors should be disciplined.

77% of leaseholders who were told the difference will receive a windfall which is a kick in the teeth for those who can't afford their own home and for those who have bought a freehold under the old method.or who have simply bought a freehold home. I'm not sure why somebody who knew it was a lease and had to pay a ground rent should benefit by thousands of pounds.

There was also some mis-selling where people were told they could buy the freehold at a certain price and once these people have bought the freehold then those that mis-sold need to make up the difference.

Fines should be dished out for any mis-selling
.

What windfall!! We have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for homes we thought we owned. We are getting our homes back. I didn't pay a mortgage to pay for somebody else to own my home or to take a cut.

james_tate

Socajam
"A simple search on "leasehold" v "freehold" for a house would put one straight"
Have a search and see what come with, so many diferent versions of the aswer

worzel_gummidge

simondv wrote: »

I'm not sure why a remote ground rent investor who only paid 1% or 2% for the freehold interest and has added no value, cares nothing for the building or people within it other than getting fees from it, should get a disproportionate windfall and benefit from the leaseholder's efforts. Leasehold properties with long leases are not much cheaper than freehold ones so the leaseholder has gained nothing, and pays ground rents and fees during the term. The freeholder has already had more than adequate "compensation" despite having done nothing for it.

If you answer my question I'll answer yours.

Why should somebody who knew it was a lease and had to pay a ground rent should benefit by thousands of pounds?

worzel_gummidge

[Deleted User] wrote:

We have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for homes we thought we owned.

So were you told it was a lease?

Keith_Atkinson

Why didn't I expect anything that was truly going to help me.
We bought a new house from Taylor Wimpey in 2007.
We knew all about the leasehold, that it was £250 a year and doubled after 25 years
The issue we have, that at point of sale, when we enquired about buying the lease, we were told we could, after 2 years for 13 times the annual rent, so £3250.
After the 2 year period we enquired with the intent of buying it.
What we didn't know, that in that time frame, it had been sold on twice, without us even being given first refusal.
We were quoted over £8000.
Now, it is at least double that amount.
So, it would seem, that when we enquired at the point of sale, they knew this would be the case, so they were transparent with the truth.
If we had known that at the time, we certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with the sale.
I have been a member of the National Leasehold Campaign for some time now.
It is certainly worth joining, the help and advice is exceptional.
It's a pity that the powers above don't seem to be on the same wavelength.