Buying flat awful experience

GDB2222

When my parents first moved to a garden suburb, their house was a 999 year leasehold. Well, there was around 950 years left. 

The freehold was held by a trust, which strictly governed what owners could do with their property, and thus ensured that the character of the area was protected.  

That seems a good idea, and not ‘corrupt' at all. 

macman

F37A said:

macman said:

OP I'm bemused by some of your comments. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with buying a leasehold property, and if you want to buy a flat outside of Scotland in the UK, then leasehold is invariably what you'll be buying. It may or may not give you the option to own a share of the freehold. Most houses in central London and the West End are leaseI neither own a leasehold property, not do i hold, but it doesn't seem to deter people from spending upwards of £10m on them, The point is simply to ensure that the lease is good. Any competent conveyancer can do that. If you employ an 'international firm' of solicitors to do a simple leasehold conveyance then of course you are going to be charged the earth, because they are usually only doing that sort of work for high wealth private clients. And there is certainly no guarantee of quality service either, as most of the legwork will be done by paralegals, not qualified conveyancers. 
Putting in quotes that high is their polite way of saying 'we'd really rather not bother with this', but you didn't seem to take the hint.

I'm bemused by your comments. You probably own one of course your going to say there's nothing wrong with a leasehold. Leasehold is corrupt to the bone if you can't see that then your either one of the those ones profiteering from it.

I neither own a leasehold property, nor do I profit from any kind of leasehold business. 
If you are claiming that leasehold is 'corrupt to the bone' then you need to justify your allegations. 
The fact that you squandered a huge amount in legal fees for an abandoned leasehold purchase does not make the leasehold system unfit for purpose. 
Obviously, it's a more expensive conveyance, because there is more to check. That doesn't make it 'corrupt'.

EssexHebridean

I live in a leasehold property - there's nothing intrinsically corrupt about leaseholds as a whole, although there are problems with some freeholders. You might as well say that the whole business of buying and selling property is corrupt because you were scammed by one Estate agent...! 

It's like anything else - educate yourself on the issues that can arise. Familiarise yourself with the laws around it that would affect you. Question anything that seems over-priced. Do your research  around what can - and can't be charged, and the processes required to make those charges. Once you understand what you are dealing with, the whole picture becomes a lot clearer. It's not reasonable to decry a whole system under which many people live perfectly happily as "corrupt" simply because you don't understand it, though. 

Ultimately - you decided to go with a "designer label" law firm and this has cost you dearly. You were given a massive hint that really, you were not their target client - you failed to take it. Quite honestly - unless you're at millionaire level and consorting on a daily basis with others on the same level nobody is in the least impressed by which legal firm you've used for a tiny conveyancing job - indeed, most of your peers probably wouldn't even have heard of whichever firm it was! This situation isn't like owning a flash car or a designer suit that perhaps is recognisable at a glance and gains you some sort of perceived status - it's a straightforward business transaction, nothing more. I get that you're stinging a bit, but if you are serious about getting on the property ladder then it's time to learn from the experience as said previously, dust yourself down, and take the lessons forward. 

nicmyles

There is huge corruption in the leasehold system, that should go without saying, surely. How many stories of negligent or money-grabbing freeholders appear here on a regular basis?

But leasehold itself is just a mechanism. I don't think it's a great one, but there's nothing inherently corrupt about it.

And if you want to live in a flat, particularly in London, you will most likely be buying leasehold, that's just reality. It sounds like you (OP) have decided to take the other option ie refuse to buy leasehold at great personal inconvenience in terms of travel, etc. Personally I think this is a false economy, particularly if you're only planning to stay in the flat a few years before looking to upgrade.

MEM62

F37A said:

Anyone feel same?

Nope!  Purchased my flat some years ago and am now in the process of selling it (including the complication of a lease extension) without any of the issues or hassles you have detailed.  Also, I never lied about it when selling it.  

eddddy

nicmyles said:

There is huge corruption in the leasehold system, that should go without saying, surely. How many stories of negligent or money-grabbing freeholders appear here on a regular basis?

There are 4.8 million leasehold homes in the UK - that's 20% of all homes.  I'm not sure that the number of complaints about bad freeholders on this site is a significant indicator of anything.

People don't really come to sites like this to start a thread saying "I've owned a flat for 5 years, and I can't think of anything bad my freeholder has done."

And similarly I don't think news websites would bother publishing a story like "A freeholder has owned a development of 500 flats for 20 years, and they've done nothing wrong", because it's not really newsworthy.

nicmyles

eddddy said:

There are 4.8 million leasehold homes in the UK - that's 20% of all homes.  I'm not sure that the number of complaints about bad freeholders on this site is a significant indicator of anything.

People don't really come to sites like this to start a thread saying "I've owned a flat for 5 years, and I can't think of anything bad my freeholder has done."

And similarly I don't think news websites would bother publishing a story like "A freeholder has owned a development of 500 flats for 20 years, and they've done nothing wrong", because it's not really newsworthy.

eg "More than half (54%) of leaseholders say they have encountered problems with their leasehold property including service charges and maintenance fees according to the 2019 annual Homeowner Survey."

Sure, not all of those will amount to corruption - but for instance when I lived in a leasehold flat my freeholders were constantly charging amounts for non-existent work. They were mostly small amounts and in the end it wasn't worth the hassle of challenging given we were only ever planning to be there for a couple of years. My own experience and others I know is near-constant cash extraction, skirting the letter of the law and relying on leaseholders to not bother taking any action.

It's not a great system.

Wanderingpomm

F37A said:

EssexHebridean said:

user1977 said:

I agree £3.5k sounds an absurdly high fee, especially for a transaction which didn't get that close to completion, and presumably for a property at a relatively modest price level.

It is - it’s the sort of fee I’d expect to see being charged by a “prestige” central London firm who don’t really want that level of “small fry” business and hope that the prospective client will go away when they see the cost. (And generally, where the recommended several quotes are obtained prior to instructing, that’s exactly what would happen when client sees that actually, “Groats, Bedknobs and Broomsticks & Partners” in the local high street, who their best mate used when they bought and said were great, would charge fees of around a third of that level!). Not all clients are particularly desirable for larger firms or those who market themselves as “prestige” - and the OP would be unlikely to create lots of lucrative future business for them at a level they would want. 

Like everything in life - it comes down to choice. If someone wants to buy a Porsche to drive to Tesco once a week, then if they can afford it, great, but they shouldn’t kid themselves that they are getting value for money. And, allowing that they know in advance how much the Porsche will cost to buy compared to a Ford Fiesta, they also know ahead of time quite how poor that VFM actually is. 

I wonder what a reasonable rate is for a solicitor to do conveyancing on flat in london for around 250k purchase

My 2 bed flat was £2.2k and that was with a share of the freehold which made things a bit more complex.
£3.5k seems like daylight robbery. 

Sistergold

F37A said:

EssexHebridean said:

What on earth are you doing to be spending 5k a time without even getting to exchange? 

EssexHebridean said:

What on earth are you doing to be spending 5k a time without even getting to exchange? 

I was 3 weeks from exchange. Just searches left. I could and should have approached differently but solicitors want to milk you as well as agent so don't tell you anything. It was 500 broker cost, 800 survey and 3.5k solicitors

Iiisssh! That’s a bad experience for sure. Leaseholds needs navigation and can be tricky for sure. Many posts on people not getting management packs until late in the game etc so I understand your pain. I know leaseholds will be bought by some but if there is a way to avoid then you could make your purchase and later life easier I think. 

Sistergold

F37A said:

UnderOffer said:

So that 3.5k is everything up to searches (i.e no searches were carried out). 

You spent 3.5k on a failed purchase? I don’t think the issue is a leased flat, but the solicitors you’ve chosen. 

But given the level of corruption with leasehold it is reasonable to go for a good solicitor. Look at all these people on unsellable ground rent flat purchases or cladding problems as mortgage prisoners - I don't want to end up like that.

I am not sure a pricey solicitor would have saved one from the cladding scandal. The cladding was considered okay when it was built but now on the Hindsight of the fire it’s now a no no and costing people the earth.