'Service charges' after buying freehold council house?

leonj

jimbog said:

Just refuse to buy it under those circumstances and that will certainly give them something to think about

I doubt it since they are probably paying a pittance for it

lincroft1710

jimbog said:

Just refuse to buy it under those circumstances and that will certainly give them something to think about

Yes, the council will retain a house which it would otherwise be forced to dispose of, and in the distant future can be used to help someone get off the council house waiting list.

eddddy

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

Magst68

eddddy said:

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

I wouldn't describe any area around here as 'communal'. In fact there isn't even a tree or patch of grass for over 100m of the property. So it seems quite hard to justify, especially as the other homeowners (it's mainly homeowners) pay nothing. 

We're actually trying to find legislation that would counter the legal right to buy that is in support of forcing these charges on to the buyer. I suppose it's good news we've not found anything to that effect yet

Thanks for your input  

Pixie5740

Magst68 said:

eddddy said:

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

I wouldn't describe any area around here as 'communal'. In fact there isn't even a tree or patch of grass for over 100m of the property. So it seems quite hard to justify, especially as the other homeowners (it's mainly homeowners) pay nothing. 

We're actually trying to find legislation that would counter the legal right to buy that is in support of forcing these charges on to the buyer. I suppose it's good news we've not found anything to that effect yet

Thanks for your input  

I’m not sure what legislation you’re looking for. You want to buy a house. The house comes with a covenant. Your options are to accept the covenant and buy or refuse to buy unless the covenant is removed at which point you’re locked in a stalemate as there is nothing to say the council has to remove the covenant. You would be relying on the council’s goodwill to remove it and I’m not sure I’d give you even odds on that happening. 

user1977

Magst68 said:

eddddy said:

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

We're actually trying to find legislation that would counter the legal right to buy that is in support of forcing these charges on to the buyer. I suppose it's good news we've not found anything to that effect yet

Of course it's lawful - you don't really think councils have been unlawfully imposing such covenants for decades, and you're the first person to spot it, do you?

Try section 125 of the Housing Act 1985.

microcristallina

I have a new build with the same kind of thing. My house is freehold but there is a service charge of around £600 a year. When you buy the house its in the deeds that you agree to pay. If you don't pay you could be taken to court or your mortgage company might pay it and recover the money from you. If you want the house you're going to have to agree to it.

Magst68

user1977 said:

Magst68 said:

eddddy said:

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

We're actually trying to find legislation that would counter the legal right to buy that is in support of forcing these charges on to the buyer. I suppose it's good news we've not found anything to that effect yet

Of course it's lawful - you don't really think councils have been unlawfully imposing such covenants for decades, and you're the first person to spot it, do you?

Try section 125 of the Housing Act 1985.

That does state it is 'in the landlords opinion' and doesn't distinguish between leasehold and freehold. I'm not sure how well that will stand up as the majority do not have to pay for the 'upkeep of the estate' and I'm aware of other tenants who have this condition in their deeds but have been successful is wavering the payment as it's unjustified to pay for 'maintenance' when their isn't anything to maintain.

daveyjp

microcristallina said:

I have a new build with the same kind of thing. My house is freehold but there is a service charge of around £600 a year. When you buy the house its in the deeds that you agree to pay. If you don't pay you could be taken to court or your mortgage company might pay it and recover the money from you. If you want the house you're going to have to agree to it.

Or if you don't pay you may end up a tenant in your own 'freehold' house.

user1977

Magst68 said:

user1977 said:

Magst68 said:

eddddy said:

Magst68 said:

What's worse is that apparently it only applies to houses sold after 2012, which means only about 20% of the people will be paying this infinite 'service charge' and 100% of the other homeowners will be paying nothing. 

I would have thought your percentage of the service charge would be based on the number of properties that have the use of the communal space.

For example,

• If 50 'similar' houses all have access to the communal space - you would pay 1/50th or 2% of cost of maintaining the communal space.

It doesn't matter if some of those houses were bought before 2012 and/or some those houses are still owned by the council and rented out.


(My guess is that the council didn't get their act together before 2012 - and didn't think about including a service charge for buyers.)

Magst68 said:
Exactly, these costs could in theory double or triple. No thank you  

In theory, yes.  But they should only be your share of the cost of cutting the grass, pruning the trees etc.

So if the cost of hiring contractors to cut the grass doubles - then your service charge might double. But that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

I guess there might be unexpected expenses, like a tree becomes unsafe, so tree-surgeons have to cut it down - and then maybe there's the cost of planting a new one.


But I guess you should check whether the deed allows the council to charge you for improvements - like fancy new plants and planters, or maybe a pond and water feature! 

We're actually trying to find legislation that would counter the legal right to buy that is in support of forcing these charges on to the buyer. I suppose it's good news we've not found anything to that effect yet

Of course it's lawful - you don't really think councils have been unlawfully imposing such covenants for decades, and you're the first person to spot it, do you?

Try section 125 of the Housing Act 1985.

That does state it is 'in the landlords opinion' and doesn't distinguish between leasehold and freehold.

There's no need for it to distinguish between leasehold and freehold. The principle is the same - you own the property (whether it's a freehold or leasehold interest you own) and are responsible for paying for maintenance of common areas. And you know what the landlord's opinion is.