What are your thoughts on purchasing Flats vs Houses these days?

Flugelhorn

it depends what you want - I like having my garden and my house, all quite quiet and practical but no sea view. To get as near the sea and beach as possible it had to be a flat (which costs more than the house)

lookstraightahead

gab3x said:

Well I have some strong feelings on this subject...

• I would never enter into a leasehold agreement again. it is an antiquated feudal system in which you as a lessee do not own property and if you fail to comply with terms of your lease you can lose it and all the money you invested in it. Don't think this does not happen! (freeholds are still leaseholds, problems still arise as long as you're dependent on actions of others)
• Furthermore, your freeholder has very few legally enforceable obligations towards you so when you need something from them you have to pray that they do it and do it in time, and you'll fork out $$$ for it.As an example try selling your flat without freeholder form - you won't be able to and if your freeholder cannot or won't fill that out then you have no way or forcing them to other than taking them to court. 
• Soundproofing in UK is terrible to non-existent irrespective of price point. My friend lives in the very luxurious Battersea Power Station and can hear all of his neighbours thru walls + the train, every train. Yes houses have soundproofing issues too but it's at least limited to one or two sides, in flats it can be 5 sides!
• In a flat you cannot do what you want as you're governed by restrictive covenants - try putting hardwood flooring or owning a pet and then you discover you breached the covenant of your leasehold.
• Houses have costs of upkeep but most London leaseholds will come between £2-6k annual service charge + ground rent. I'm sorry but 2-3 bed houses of any age do not cost that much to upkeep!
• Don't like to upkeep your house garden - get a gardener to help, still cheaper than paying service charges
• When your ceiling floods in a flat you have your neighbours to deal with, they might be annoying or they might not even be there. Yes, they'll pick up the bill but it can be so stressful and painful. In your house - you own the problem and you fix it with your money, in your time and in the way that you want it done.

The only reason in my view to get a flat is if you're living in central London and cannot afford a house or if it is BTL, but even that is a lot of hassle again due to leaseholds.

All very valid points
But I would still buy a flat over a new build. New builds come with their own set of problems 

[Deleted User]

hazyjo said:

[Deleted User] said:

Obviously we do need a massive house price crash, but in the mean time flats have a major issue: cladding and fire safety.

Until that gets sorted out buying a flat risks massive bills, possibly more than the flat is worth.

But those buying them now will know what they're getting. It's those that bought before that have been affected.

That's the thing, they won't know what they are getting. No matter how many surveys and fire safety certificates it has, a year or two later they could decide that some material wasn't up to standard and needs to be replaced.

It's basically taking on virtually unlimited financial liability.

That's why mortgage lenders often won't lend on such properties.

Alex_Selis

I personally think that leashold if was honestly managed, fairly priced and improved in regulation and controls over the freeholder and management agent would be still a decent way to avoid paying rent for life unfortunately it is not. I would never buy a leashold flat again going back in time,  the law in UK is a joke and the government is just incapable of managing the conflict that reside in this mediaeval scheme of things. Shame on the political class, housing association, RSA surveyors, Managing Agents and so called Real Estate tycoons...you are the worst. Government should abolish leasehold, allow only common hold in residential properties. For existing leasehold property ground rent should be zero, and allow lease term extension for 999 years for all new and old leaseholds. All existing lease should be overwritten by law, in all parts, written in simple a clear contractual terms not archaic lingo stranger to most, this based in the property type and use. Managing agent should only co-manage with the residents,  which should have equal rights in term of actions against the freeholder in lack of intervention, substandard building mantainaces, overcharging and most of all legal cost should not be transferred to the leaseholders no matter who raised the case..I could write for days but I think it is enough.

csgohan4

Depends on your budget to be honest. I want a detached house, but I can't afford one, so settled for a mid terraced and happy so far. Our neighbours help heat our house

But never considered a flat due to leasehold, Sound insulation, service charges and now cladding

jenpatchy66

I am in a Retirement apartment and from a security point of view it is very good, but what I do not agree with, is if you want to change anything there is a permission fee. When I first applied to have my ground floor window changed to a Patio door the fee was £40 but you had to do the work within twelve months. Time ran out so the next time I applied the fee went to £600 yes £600. Unbelievable. Needless to say, I didn't go ahead. Fast forward eight years and decided to rent it out these are the fees they want £130 sublet fee £140 admin fee and the first month's rent which could be as much as £800. On querying the rent fee  the gentleman said 'it was a printing error' we do not want the first month's rent. How disgusting is this that they can put it down in black and white and then say it is an error. How many people have paid up? I have since found out you only need to send £40 because the FTT considers this to be fair. Leasehold is disgusting.

Crashy_Time

[Deleted User] said:

hazyjo said:

[Deleted User] said:

Obviously we do need a massive house price crash, but in the mean time flats have a major issue: cladding and fire safety.

Until that gets sorted out buying a flat risks massive bills, possibly more than the flat is worth.

But those buying them now will know what they're getting. It's those that bought before that have been affected.

That's the thing, they won't know what they are getting. No matter how many surveys and fire safety certificates it has, a year or two later they could decide that some material wasn't up to standard and needs to be replaced.

It's basically taking on virtually unlimited financial liability.

That's why mortgage lenders often won't lend on such properties.

That covers a LOT of properties.

BunnyB22

With any leasehold (flat or house) you own nothing but pay for everything internally  & externally (fabric of building, glazing, plumbing etc), roof,basement, carpark,lifts.

Shared Ownership leasehold - again you own nothing but a piece of paper advsing you have the right to reside in a property  you will never own but will pay for everything inside & out.

Don't do it. The numerous Govt announcements regarding providing funding to remmediate buildings over 18mtrs does not hold the developers & sub contractors responsible for costs to rectify their mistakes, theses costs are being passed onto leaseholders. 

The multiple govt announcements re funding for remmediation, there is no additional funding other that the original GBP5bn, Boris et al seem to think by clicking his heels & repeating the same script over & over the GBP amount will triple.

So buy freehold & if you choose to buy leasehold appoint a solicitor that specialises in leasehold to identify/remove any onerous conditions, relating to ground rent etc.

Also how much is ground rent & how is it treated?  Is it doubling? How many years left on lease? 

Ask seller if they would be willing to initiate lease extenion and transfer to yourself on completion of sale. 100 yrs on a lease sounds alot but it's not, if you purchase a lease without seller initiating lease extension you will have to wait x years before you can extend the lease which will significantly increase costs for you to extend & hard to sell on if not done.

Doc_N

I suppose all of this depends on how much you can afford - but if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford either an apartment or a small house, go for the house every time.  And avoid almost all leaseholds (with some exceptions - and these are usually leaseholds created a very long time ago, before freeholders started getting greedy).

Apartments are now incredibly difficult to sell, and large numbers of them built in the last twenty years or so have been so badly built that major repairs to the external structure (quite apart from the fire safety issues that everyone knows about) will be needed, landing each apartment owner with a huge liability running into tens of thousands of pounds.

Talk off the record to any of the architects involved in these buildings and you'll get the same story - built with a 15 year lifespan before major structural repairs are needed.  15 years is long enough to get all those involved off the hook - developers, architects, main contractors, subcontractors - leaving the poor leaseholders to pick up the huge tab.

The government (meaning the taxpayer - us) won't pick up the tab, and the prospect of legal action against any of the real culprits is remote - out of time for legal action. There's no reason for the government to pay either - it's entirely a personal matter, and if it paid for that it would be just as logical to pay for any catastrophe that hits anyone, which it clearly can't do because it would mean struggling renters having to pay for those who thought they were fortunate enough to be able to buy.  Basically, very unfair.

Ever since the 1960s it's been known that apartment blocks carry high risks - even then there were problems involving substantial repairs to entire blocks, and leaseholders having to pay - but of late people have thrown that earlier knowledge, and caution, to the wind and ignored all the warnings.

Don't allow yourself to get caught the same way.  Stick to a freehold house, even if it means waiting longer to get it.  Far better than being stuck with an apartment you can't sell, which is falling in value, and the repairs on which could well bankrupt you. 

And remember too - this will be your problem, not the government's.  It isn't for other taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet already, to bail out those who were fortunate enough to have more money than them but chose to take a chance on something which had been warned against for more than 50 years.

Crashy_Time

Doc_N said:

I suppose all of this depends on how much you can afford - but if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford either an apartment or a small house, go for the house every time.  And avoid almost all leaseholds (with some exceptions - and these are usually leaseholds created a very long time ago, before freeholders started getting greedy).

Apartments are now incredibly difficult to sell, and large numbers of them built in the last twenty years or so have been so badly built that major repairs to the external structure (quite apart from the fire safety issues that everyone knows about) will be needed, landing each apartment owner with a huge liability running into tens of thousands of pounds.

Talk off the record to any of the architects involved in these buildings and you'll get the same story - built with a 15 year lifespan before major structural repairs are needed.  15 years is long enough to get all those involved off the hook - developers, architects, main contractors, subcontractors - leaving the poor leaseholders to pick up the huge tab.

The government (meaning the taxpayer - us) won't pick up the tab, and the prospect of legal action against any of the real culprits is remote - out of time for legal action. There's no reason for the government to pay either - it's entirely a personal matter, and if it paid for that it would be just as logical to pay for any catastrophe that hits anyone, which it clearly can't do because it would mean struggling renters having to pay for those who thought they were fortunate enough to be able to buy.  Basically, very unfair.

Ever since the 1960s it's been known that apartment blocks carry high risks - even then there were problems involving substantial repairs to entire blocks, and leaseholders having to pay - but of late people have thrown that earlier knowledge, and caution, to the wind and ignored all the warnings.

Don't allow yourself to get caught the same way.  Stick to a freehold house, even if it means waiting longer to get it.  Far better than being stuck with an apartment you can't sell, which is falling in value, and the repairs on which could well bankrupt you. 

And remember too - this will be your problem, not the government's.  It isn't for other taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet already, to bail out those who were fortunate enough to have more money than them but chose to take a chance on something which had been warned against for more than 50 years.

Not sure they had more money, but certainly more debt which will just be a massive burden to them now, especially if mortgage rates rise,. Wasn`t aware of warnings going on for 50 years though?