Should the Government act NOW to reform leasehold? LEASEHOLD SCANDAL

Katiejane13uk

eddddy said:

Tygawudz said:

Leasehold is slavery. Total ban immediately!

Tygawudz is a troll. Total ban immediately!

There are several parallels to slavery that have been raised in this article 

https://barcode1966.com/2017/08/06/parallels-in-the-movement-to-abolish-slavery-and-the-leasehold-system-today/

Katiejane13uk

penners324 said:

Looks like a lot of trolls just mouthing off on this thread.
I had a leasehold flat, built by Taylor Wimpey. Cost me £1.5k in solicitors fees to amend the lease to RPI increases.

How on earth someone has to pay £50k to fix I've no idea.

Not all freeholders will agree to a Deed of Variation. They don't have to agree to it.
If you are lucky enough to have a freeholder that agrees to vary the lease to RPI it doesn't always fix the problem. If the GR remains above £250 a year outside London or £1000 inside London its an AST and still considered onerous and many mortgage lenders will not lend.

https://leaseholdandparkhomelaw.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/onerous-leases/

[Deleted User]

Katiejane13uk said:

eddddy said:

Tygawudz said:

Leasehold is slavery. Total ban immediately!

Tygawudz is a troll. Total ban immediately!

There are several parallels to slavery that have been raised in this article 

https://barcode1966.com/2017/08/06/parallels-in-the-movement-to-abolish-slavery-and-the-leasehold-system-today/

From the article 
‘ My comparison here is made purely on the history of the abolition of slavery, the process they went through and the challenges that campaign faced.’ 

The parallels here are more to do with campaigning. I have many problems with ‘fleecehold’ and Leasehold/ freeholder abuse, but connecting leasehold problems to slavery without true context seems hyperbolic and insensitive. 

dnees

ftbhopes said:

Katiejane13uk said:

eddddy said:

Tygawudz said:

Leasehold is slavery. Total ban immediately!

Tygawudz is a troll. Total ban immediately!

There are several parallels to slavery that have been raised in this article 

https://barcode1966.com/2017/08/06/parallels-in-the-movement-to-abolish-slavery-and-the-leasehold-system-today/

From the article 
‘ My comparison here is made purely on the history of the abolition of slavery, the process they went through and the challenges that campaign faced.’ 

The parallels here are more to do with campaigning. I have many problems with ‘fleecehold’ and Leasehold/ freeholder abuse, but connecting leasehold problems to slavery without true context seems hyperbolic and insensitive. 

Realistically, leaseholders have had to pay up front by getting a mortgage in most cases to buy a piece of paper , the lease , that says they can live in that property for a certain number of years. Then the analogy to slavery kicks in by the purchasers of that lease having to stump up whatever money is demanded by their landlord. Written into the lease are clauses that make sure if the leaseholder  refuses to pay mostly unreasonable charges they can be thrown out of the property! Most leaseholders think they own the property and pay ground rent for the ground, this is untrue. Ground rent charges are for absolutely no service. The slavery analogy is in my view pretty good actually, the leaseholder works to service the landlord who has in fact invested a tiny proportion in buying the freehold. At least  slaves didn’t have to pay up first with a mortgage to then be extorted for the rest of their time in that property! 

[Deleted User]

dnees said:

ftbhopes said:

Katiejane13uk said:

eddddy said:

Tygawudz said:

Leasehold is slavery. Total ban immediately!

Tygawudz is a troll. Total ban immediately!

There are several parallels to slavery that have been raised in this article 

https://barcode1966.com/2017/08/06/parallels-in-the-movement-to-abolish-slavery-and-the-leasehold-system-today/

From the article 
‘ My comparison here is made purely on the history of the abolition of slavery, the process they went through and the challenges that campaign faced.’ 

The parallels here are more to do with campaigning. I have many problems with ‘fleecehold’ and Leasehold/ freeholder abuse, but connecting leasehold problems to slavery without true context seems hyperbolic and insensitive. 

Realistically, leaseholders have had to pay up front by getting a mortgage in most cases to buy a piece of paper , the lease , that says they can live in that property for a certain number of years. Then the analogy to slavery kicks in by the purchasers of that lease having to stump up whatever money is demanded by their landlord. Written into the lease are clauses that make sure if the leaseholder  refuses to pay mostly unreasonable charges they can be thrown out of the property! Most leaseholders think they own the property and pay ground rent for the ground, this is untrue. Ground rent charges are for absolutely no service. The slavery analogy is in my view pretty good actually, the leaseholder works to service the landlord who has in fact invested a tiny proportion in buying the freehold. At least  slaves didn’t have to pay up first with a mortgage to then be extorted for the rest of their time in that property! 

Leaseholders have more rights to contest their bills, and more options to read their contracts beforehand. I’m not saying these rights are enough or if people well informed enough to buy them. The modern Leasehold and ‘Fleecehold’ system is symptomatic of a much wider societal and housing issue. You don’t HAVE to buy a leasehold. You might have fewer choices and need somewhere to live and be subject to a really crappy private rental system but you aren’t bought/ sold/ inherited as a commodity. Slaves couldn’t ‘pay up first‘ because they weren’t allowed to own anything and were owned as property. 

And modern slavery is still an issue in some places.

Chavril

hazyjo said:

Chavril said:

We can only hope one day this fix this completely unfair system. Unfortunately for me the stress is too much and we will just be paying to get out of this crippling doubling ground rent clause. It will cost us £37k more than the deposit we put down on our flat 4 years ago. All we wanted was to own our home and start a family, we worked hard and now I wish we never even bought our home. 

Four years ago? And your solicitor and lender were okay with it? How often does it double? Has it even doubled once in those 4 years? Can't you just extend the lease and lose/ negotiate the ground rent? Where's the 37k figure come from?

We purchased the property in 2016 with a £25k deposit, December last year we discover we have a doubling ground rent clause therefore making our property not possible to get a mortgage on. We have now gone through the process of extending the lease by 90 years and making the ground rent peppercorn. This at a cost to us of £53k to extend the lease and £9k legal fees (including perusing our case against the original solicitor) That's where the figure comes from we put down a £25k deposit to purchase our home and now to sell it is costing us £62k. We are having one more try at negotiations but this is where we are at, it's a nightmare. 

princeofpounds

Slavery... for heaven's sake. Whilst I actually agree with most of the planned legislative changes, hysteria is not useful.

The fact is that there has been a vast transfer of wealth and powers from freeholders to leaseholders over the 20th Century, as successive governments enacted legislation to push long leasehold tenures ever closer to outright ownership in nature:
- Statutory rights to extension, meaning the landlord could never get their property back unless tenants willed it.
- A statutory process for lease extension that ditched marriage value for leases over 80 years, reduced the importance of it at shorter lengths, and eliminated all ground rent, meaning that landlords do not get fair compensation for those lease extensions.
- Enfranchisement, meaning that landlords can be stripped of their property, with some compensation, at a time not of their choosing.
- Awarding leaseholders more rights to inspect and challenge service charges, and the creation of a new Tribunal system to adjudicate disputes.
Etc...
It has to be one of the biggest redistributions in British history, and yet it never really gets talked about in those terms.

When you pause to think about it, the changes are remarkable. Long leaseholders expect to be treated as 'owners' of the property, despite the fact that all they bought is a very long term tenancy - the clue is in the very name.

I think a lot of leasehold reform has led to a better society, but it's arguable whether the process has been fair to freeholders, at least in economic terms. But they are rich (supposedly) so no-one cares.

And yes, there are still problems around service charge management, covenants and escalating ground rents. But the overall situation is far better than it was even ten years ago.

Thing is, times move on - the next battle will be about rentcharge and covenants in freeholds -  and then councils refusing to adopt housing estates creating an effective two-tier council tax system. And the management of apartment blocks will always be a problem to some extent, because of the age-old agent/principal conflict of interest.

davidmcn

I must have missed the bit where the slaves willingly signed up to a contract after getting independent legal advice.

princeofpounds

davidmcn said:

I must have missed the bit where the slaves willingly signed up to a contract after getting independent legal advice.

LOL...

[Deleted User]

davidmcn said:

I must have missed the bit where the slaves willingly signed up to a contract after getting independent legal advice.

Yeah...all history lessons and books really downplayed that bit....do you think the legal advice was before they were tied up and piled onto boats in unsanitary conditions or after....many died on those boats so hopefully it was before....