Should an ex social housing flat be advertised as such?

ahfat41

My son sent me a link for a flat he likes. I did a research on the post code and it came out as a social housing flat. Should the ad mentioned it is an ex one? I might be wrong but I have checked the address. Will ask him to ring EA to confirm.  The post code is social housing in n19 5df.  He was wondering why it has been on the market for 15 months and reduced by £50,000 twice. I think that might be the reason. Thanks

Seashell517

No. It's not social housing now, so it's advertised as private sale, which it is.

davidmcn

What "research on the post code" did you do? I'm not aware of anything which accurately tells you such things, and none of the properties on Rightmove looks to me like ex-social housing.

But even if it is, there's absolutely no reason why it needs to be marketed as such. It's usually pretty obvious anyway if you're in somewhere originally built as social housing

eddddy

ahfat41 said:
Should an ex social housing flat be advertised as such?

Well... by law, the EA must provide all material information in a timely manner that might influence an average person's buying decision.

So it depends whether you think an 'average person' would be influenced by a flat being 'ex social housing'..

And a 'timely manner' doesn't necessarily mean in the initial advert. For example, it could be when somebody phones to book a viewing.

Here's what The Property Ombudsman's code of practice says:

7i
You must by law comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (or the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 where applicable). The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 require you to disclose any information of which you are aware or should be aware of in relation to the property in a clear, intelligible and timely fashion and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all statements that you make about a property, whether oral, pictorial or written, are accurate and are not misleading. All material information (*) must be disclosed and there must be no material omissions which may impact on the average consumer’s (*) transactional decision (*). Where information is given to consumers and/or their representatives, it must be accurate and not misleading. 

Link: https://www.tpos.co.uk/images/Codes_2019_a5/TPOE27-8_Code_of_Practice_for_Residential_Estate_Agents_A5_-_Effective_1_June_2019.pdf

AdrianC

This one...?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/82271288#/

55m2 two-bed flat in a "purpose-built" massive sprawling Victorianish low-rise in London. Who on earth did you think would have built it...?

https://goo.gl/maps/nr2E3nc6ykMGrqg97

Why's it been on the market since June 2019, reduced from £484.5k -> £465k (Aug 19) -> £450k (Nov 19) -> £425k (Oct 20)? Because it was overpriced to start with...

theartfullodger

ahfat41 said:

My son sent me a link for a flat he likes. I did a research on the post code and it came out as a social housing flat. Should the ad mentioned it is an ex one? ....

Oh the shame,, oh the disgrace of an ex social housing property!  

In my experience (probably 15+ properties in my 73 years..) ex-social housing (of similar size) is usually better built to better specs and, in particular, the neighbours are much nicer.  Not always going on, boasting/whinging, about property prices!

MardyBum1977

ahfat41 said:

My son sent me a link for a flat he likes. I did a research on the post code and it came out as a social housing flat. Should the ad mentioned it is an ex one? I might be wrong but I have checked the address. Will ask him to ring EA to confirm.  The post code is social housing in n19 5df.  He was wondering why it has been on the market for 15 months and reduced by £50,000 twice. I think that might be the reason. Thanks

Lovely part of the world round there - clearly ex social housing, but imagine most of these will be sold off now due to the design/desirability of the area - If I was an FTB I'd certainly be going to view it! 

TBagpuss

No, why would it be?  

AdrianC

I would presume the "ex-social" question mark is around the potential for large service charge bills.

It's certainly a generalised rule of thumb, but I think it's more down to the costs inherent of big projects in large blocks than in the actual identity of the freeholder.

numbercruncher8

Past social housing is not really relevant.
There are blocks of new builds designated as social housing today, if in the future their use changes what difference does it make if they were social housing in the past?

As far as London goes anyway, some of these places are not too bad - often bigger and better built than their new build counterparts.

Perhaps there is a stigma on living too close to a graveyard, but overall IMO Archway is quite nice. Doesn't look like many previous sales there though, so I wonder if there is something impeding it like a massive service charge.

Wasn't it you that worried about your son smoking? 
Here is a place where it probably would be less bothersome.

greatcrested

AdrianC said:

55m2 two-bed flat in a "purpose-built" massive sprawling Victorianish low-rise in London. Who on earth did you think would have built it...?

The first proponent of social housing in Britain was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband. From the 1890s local authorities took over from philanthropists as the main builders of social housing. The London County Council were the leaders but other cities, particularly Liverpool and Glasgow, were also enthusiasts.

http://www.socialhousinghistory.uk/wp/