New build service charges and possessory title

RelievedSheff

Titus_Wadd said:

Now would be the time to rethink; we have lived under the strange regime of our site's developers for 2 years and it's not been easy.  We weighed up the pros and cons when we purchased and got a good deal because our vendors were desperate to move.  But it's not for everyone.

I'm intrigued as to why you say living under a regime.

We have been living in our new build for 18 months now and can't say that we have found living on a new build estate any different to when we lived on our previous 1930's estate.

davidmcn

RelievedSheff said:

eidand said:

wait, let me get this right ....

1. someone has the right to come into your property
2. you have to pay someone for their permission to have a shed in your own garden.

I don't know what you're buying but that is not a freehold property.
I am sure someone will be along telling you this is all normal, but, sorry, no, this is most definitely not normal and not acceptable. I'd buy an actual freehold instead not a fake one.

Our previous 1930's Freehold property had a list of covenants and restrictions. It is certainly nothing new.

Indeed - if the OP ditches this property, they're going to have a long hunt to find any vaguely modern property which is both freehold and has no covenants attached to it. The stuff they're talking about is (to a greater or lesser extent) "normal".

princeofpounds

RelievedSheff said:

Even the articles can't get it right. A small snippet from one:

"Sometimes though there are alternatives and one is the Fleecehold agreement. This is when you a contract states that you have to pay annual fees (commonly referred to as ‘estate fees’) on the land you own, so though you might have the freehold agreement you are also obliged to pay a third party additional monthly / annual fees"

Estate management charges are not fees on the land that you own. They are fees to maintain the public shared spaces and green areas. They are NOT a charge on the Freehold land that the property owner has purchased. They ARE a charge to maintain public spaces within the development.

If you are going to post links to articles at least make them ones that are accurate!!

I didn't post the links to four articles to endorse them in detail. They are just the most common examples of use of the word.

I don't know why you chose to dive into a single instance of some rather casual use of technical language by a reporter rather than address the actual point being made, which is that there is widespread online use of the term 'fleecehold' to apply to exploitative use of covenant in freehold tenure. Just because you think it should apply only to leasehold doesn't mean that it does - it's a valid opinion*, but it's just your opinion.

*Edit to add: Thought I should explain that a bit more - believe it or not, I actually agree that it would be neater if we had separate terms for exploitative practices with leasehold and freehold tenure. So I don't think the view that you're expressing is at all invalid, it just doesn't seem to be generally accepted in common use.

jon81uk

RelievedSheff said:

skm1981 said:

This was what I thought, it's fair enough having to pay a service charge for maintenance of the area, but I'll still be paying full council tax.  I just don't think this property is going to be for us.

The estate management charges are nothing to do with your council tax. Council tax pays for council provided services in your local area. Estate charges pay for the maintenance of your housing estate areas which are private to your estate. The two are completely separate entities!!

But 20+ years ago the council would adopt all green spaces and play areas and roads then the council tax covers the mowing of verges and the upkeep of the playground from the council tax.
Now the council can't afford or doesn't want to look after those spaces so don't adopt them and so we have service charges.
It is a council tax issue, as the council doesn't want to or can't afford to spend council tax on maintenance of local play areas and green spaces.

PJBRFC

princeofpounds said:

RelievedSheff said:

Even the articles can't get it right. A small snippet from one:

"Sometimes though there are alternatives and one is the Fleecehold agreement. This is when you a contract states that you have to pay annual fees (commonly referred to as ‘estate fees’) on the land you own, so though you might have the freehold agreement you are also obliged to pay a third party additional monthly / annual fees"

Estate management charges are not fees on the land that you own. They are fees to maintain the public shared spaces and green areas. They are NOT a charge on the Freehold land that the property owner has purchased. They ARE a charge to maintain public spaces within the development.

If you are going to post links to articles at least make them ones that are accurate!!

I didn't post the links to four articles to endorse them in detail. They are just the most common examples of use of the word.

I don't know why you chose to dive into a single instance of some rather casual use of technical language by a reporter rather than address the actual point being made, which is that there is widespread online use of the term 'fleecehold' to apply to exploitative use of covenant in freehold tenure. Just because you think it should apply only to leasehold doesn't mean that it does - it's a valid opinion, but it's just your opinion.

I completely agree with princeofpounds to be honest. I've only ever heard of and used the term fleecehold when referring to the con that is freehold houses that have associated costs owed to management companies forever, and who have no right to fight them. I have lived in a new build of this sort and we and our neighbours often used the term.

Again an opinion but it certainly seems to be backed up multiple times online. 

Titus_Wadd

RelievedSheff said:

Titus_Wadd said:

Now would be the time to rethink; we have lived under the strange regime of our site's developers for 2 years and it's not been easy.  We weighed up the pros and cons when we purchased and got a good deal because our vendors were desperate to move.  But it's not for everyone.

I'm intrigued as to why you say living under a regime.

We have been living in our new build for 18 months now and can't say that we have found living on a new build estate any different to when we lived on our previous 1930's estate.

Our situation is a weird combination of truly awful neighbours who also built the house we're in.  I'm building up for a thread about it soon (or a sitcom), but just when I think they can't get any weirder they do something else bizarre.  Part of the problem lies in them viewing the site as their own fiefdom. creating and changing "rules" on a whim.  Even though our solicitors (and probably theirs) have explained the limits of their "control" ended with what is in the covenants included in first and subsequent transfers. 

They build nice houses though, and we got a corker.  As a family, they don't understand the law.  We're bloody-minded enough to calmly explain the covenants ad infinitum if necessary.  Factoring in the odd solicitor letter and the rent charge we still got a good deal.  The gamble will be whether we still feel the same in 10 years time, that it was worth the hassle.  Currently they're not even smart enough to realise their endless disputes with us will be declared when they try to sell the other houses.

Sorry to the OP for hi-jacking the thread a bit.  Mind you any house-purchase is a gamble and while you're viewing the dream home it's worth looking at neighbour relations etc and ask around those who already live on the new estate how reasonable the developer and the management company are, and how much any annual charges could increase in the future.

frogglet

30 years ago we moved into an estate. All the bits of grass adjacent to houses were made their responsibility to maintain in their covenents despite not owning it. Fortunately the large bit of grass at the entrance is mowed by the council despite it being unadopted. Councils now have cut alsorts of things. 
A lot of estates also have play areas included.
Can these management fees be raised outrageously like leasehold charges are?

skm1981

eidand said:

wait, let me get this right ....

1. someone has the right to come into your property
2. you have to pay someone for their permission to have a shed in your own garden.

I don't know what you're buying but that is not a freehold property.
I am sure someone will be along telling you this is all normal, but, sorry, no, this is most definitely not normal and not acceptable. I'd buy an actual freehold instead not a fake one.

That's what it says in my preliminary report.  And this is exactly it, I would feel like a tenant, not an owner.  I mean if I buy the house freehold, I own the house and the land, yet I can't freely do what I want with it.  I mean I'd get it if I wanted to have an extension, but a shed?!  It just seems absolutely ridiculous and extremely off-putting.

skm1981

RelievedSheff said:

skm1981 said:

RelievedSheff said:

skm1981 said:

This was what I thought, it's fair enough having to pay a service charge for maintenance of the area, but I'll still be paying full council tax.  I just don't think this property is going to be for us.

The estate management charges are nothing to do with your council tax. Council tax pays for council provided services in your local area. Estate charges pay for the maintenance of your housing estate areas which are private to your estate. The two are completely separate entities!!

Yeah I get this, but where I live now - and I assume most places - it also pays for road repairs/maintenance, the bin men (although I assume that we would still get that service).  I would be paying full council tax but not receiving the full benefits from it is what I'm guessing.

You would get exactly the same benefits from paying your council tax as everyone else in your local authority.

Your estate charges pay for the upkeep of your housing estate.

Yes, but my point is if I didn't live on that estate, I would be paying the same amount of council tax, but not also paying a management company.  

UnderOffer

Titus_Wadd said:

RelievedSheff said:

Titus_Wadd said:

Now would be the time to rethink; we have lived under the strange regime of our site's developers for 2 years and it's not been easy.  We weighed up the pros and cons when we purchased and got a good deal because our vendors were desperate to move.  But it's not for everyone.

I'm intrigued as to why you say living under a regime.

We have been living in our new build for 18 months now and can't say that we have found living on a new build estate any different to when we lived on our previous 1930's estate.

Our situation is a weird combination of truly awful neighbours who also built the house we're in.  I'm building up for a thread about it soon (or a sitcom), but just when I think they can't get any weirder they do something else bizarre.  Part of the problem lies in them viewing the site as their own fiefdom. creating and changing "rules" on a whim.  Even though our solicitors (and probably theirs) have explained the limits of their "control" ended with what is in the covenants included in first and subsequent transfers. 

They build nice houses though, and we got a corker.  As a family, they don't understand the law.  We're bloody-minded enough to calmly explain the covenants ad infinitum if necessary.  Factoring in the odd solicitor letter and the rent charge we still got a good deal.  The gamble will be whether we still feel the same in 10 years time, that it was worth the hassle.  Currently they're not even smart enough to realise their endless disputes with us will be declared when they try to sell the other houses.

Sorry to the OP for hi-jacking the thread a bit.  Mind you any house-purchase is a gamble and while you're viewing the dream home it's worth looking at neighbour relations etc and ask around those who already live on the new estate how reasonable the developer and the management company are, and how much any annual charges could increase in the future.

Ooo you’ve got me intrigued, would love to hear more 😀. Though if they are as daft as you say, they are very unlikely to declare this issue on any of the paperwork involved with selling the other properties.