Leasehold flat in South East London or Freehold House in Croydon?

JeffMason

Is freehold safer than leasehold? There's more hassle and extra costs involved with leasehold, so I'd need to factor that in with budgeting. Plus, the potential issues with neighbours and dealing with communal areas. 

But then why is Croydon still so cheap relative to London? It's very well connected and fast into London. Seems to have nice bits and some lovely houses. What am I missing?

And then, will the value also increase on London leasehold (probably Catford, Forest Hill, Anerley areas) more than Croydon freehold?

Perhaps share of freehold flat is the middle ground to aim for?

Thoughts on all this welcomed...

Bookgal88

Croydon is well connected, but not somewhere that people aspire to live. There are a lot of fast food joints and low-end shops (Primark, Poundland etc.) around. I used to work at an office in Croydon and none of the bars or pubs I used to walk past looked like the kind of place I'd really want to drink in - very Wetherspoons-y. This isn't meant to sound snooty, but I'm just trying to explain as best I can why house prices there seem very reasonable!
I wouldn't say freehold is safer than leasehold, but they certainly both have their pros and cons. For starters, all flats will be leasehold or share of freehold. Any house should be freehold. A share of freehold flat would be lovely, but they're nowhere near as common and certainly aren't free of problems. 
I would think a flat in Catford / Forest Hill would likely increase more than a house in Croydon. But this is down to the area and the kind of people that it attracts rather than whether it is freehold or leasehold. 
What's your budget and what're your priorities? You might get some alternative location suggestions on here if you would like to provide them. 

Soundgirlrocks

I think it depends where you are looking in Croydon, there are good bits and bad bits. Crystal Palace was consider a bit of a dump when I was a kid, its now highly desirable and in Croydon. There has been a lot of money spent around East Croydon on new luxury flats.

Personally I would go for a freehold house if you can as they generally better investments than leasehold flats where you have to deal with service charges. 

Doozergirl

It was. Along time ago now but we chose leasehold flats in Streatham and Crystal Palace over houses in Croydon/South Norwood.  I grew up in those areas and went to school in Croydon.  

Croydon is well connected but it feels like Croydon, not like London, and you still have to get yourself to East Croydon station to be well connected.  Some of it was ropey, some of it felt too much like grown up suburbia and none of it was actually 'cool'.  I don't know what it feels like now as I've never felt compelled to go back to Croydon but go to London all the time and would happily live in Crystal Palace, still. 

Despite timings into Central London, you still have to actually live where you live. 

Windofchange

I think from reading that it is hard to get a mortgage on a share of freehold flat? I could be wrong, but sure I read that somewhere along the line.

I spent 25 years in Croydon, and it probably is a lot to do with image. I don't think as has been mentioned it is one of those places that people aspire to live, but you could have said that about Brixton, Forest Hill, Catford etc etc back in the day. There is quite a lot going on at present with all the new builds around the station, the box park, and Westfield if it ever does get built coming. I've only ever brought a house to live in anyway, and although nice if it goes up in price, it isn't a prime consideration. For me, the space would almost always win over location, but I guess for someone a bit younger and more into night life etc that may not be the case. 

We are in the process of buying a freehold house, preferring that over a leasehold. I just like the idea of being able to do what I want without needing permission from anyone. Seems perverse to buy somewhere, but not actually own it! For me, I would take the freehold house in a poorer location over a leasehold flat somewhere a bit nicer because I want the space. You pays yer money, you makes yer choice! 

Windofchange

Thought so....

https://www.ker.co.uk/freehold-flats-what-is-the-problem-and-how-can-i-fix-it/

JeffMason

Windofchange said:

Thought so....

https://www.ker.co.uk/freehold-flats-what-is-the-problem-and-how-can-i-fix-it/

This is talking about a full freehold flat (which I didn't know existed) and I've only ever seen 'share of freehold' flats, which seems a little better than leasehold, but all depends of the specifics of who you share with or who the freeholder is on the leasehold etc.
 

JeffMason

There seems to be arguments on both sides, and that's where I'm at with it - I can see the good and bad with each, and hoped some further insight might push me one way or other. I love the idea of a whole house with a garden but London is nicer than Croydon. I'm hoping they'll be other factors that will nudge me one way or other. 

Thanks for the thoughts and advice so far! 

AdrianC

Umm, the London Borough of Croydon is London...

Nick_C

I used to own a flat in a small block of 21.  Leasehold flat. Share of freehold. Managing agents fees were high.  Limited control of overheads.  Other tenants not interested in getting involved. Managing the managing agent was a hassle. As was sacking them and appointing a new one. Needed to keep a close eye on the accounts.  The Accountants were not brilliant either, but they were expensive. Needed to ensure Companies House returns were being done promptly.  You can appoint agents and accountants but if you get involved in the management company as a Director, the legal responsibilities are yours, not the agents.  Wouldn't want the hassle of that sort of situation again. 

Unless you have no confidence in dealing with property maintenance yourself, go for a freehold house.

Windofchange

JeffMason said:

....but London is nicer than Croydon.

This is like saying but a red car is nicer than cars. I can certainly think of parts of London that are far worse than Croydon despite all of its short comings. As pointed out above, Croydon is London anyway! 

Which specific bit of London are you talking about, and which specific part of Croydon? As above, I grew up and lived my early adult years in Croydon, so have a pretty good grasp of what areas to avoid, and what areas aren't actually all that bad. And there are a lot that actually aren't all that bad!